Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jan 2012 17:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 503457
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-02
The fact that even Samsung (having ways more patents than MS) succumbed gives a lot of credibility to MS claims, nevertheless we will never surely know what was actually signed and if the agreements are even comparable.
How do we know that it is not MS paying Sumsung rather than the other way round, rather like MS with Novell and Linux except even more hidden. MS says to Samsung you pay us $x for for our patents that "cover Android" and we will pay you $(x+y) for protection from all your patents. Samsung gets money from MS.
Now MS goes to smaller Android phone producing companies and says look "Samsung is paying us $x for our patent coverage of Android, you better pay up or else". Samsung gets it's Android phones subsidized by MS and can compete more effectively against the other Android manufacturers. MS gets leverage to extract protection money from these very same other manufacturers. Samsung and MS are laughing all the way to the bank.
I think such a scenario is perfectly possible given the history of these companies.