Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Permalink for comment 528903
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Whining by proxy
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 08:46 UTC in reply to "Whining by proxy"
Member since:

revenues stream [...] used to destroy other companies business model by giving away free equivalenta.

Then you are also against, for example, the Red Hat business model?
Or just against any business model that utilizes free equivalents and compets against other business models?

Face it. On the market different business models compete with each other. If one of those models cannot survive against a compitor then its probably the wrong model.

Microsoft's business model of expensive licenses for closed software is doomed. Not only cause of compitors like google and Red Hat but also cause the devices are more cheap today then 10 years ago making the previous small % for licenses exorbitant higher today and an disadvantage when competing.

Microsoft's business model also compets with the Apple business model which is very different. Apple makes its profit from Hardware, not software.
That is why Microsoft changed its business model to software plus service and just recently to software plus hardware plus service.
But the are not close as good as Apple and Google. Welcome to competition in an open market.

This may a problem for Microsoft but who cares? Compitors win cause customers find there products better. Its so easy.

Also note that both, Apple and Microsoft, utilize FLOSS in there products. Yes, they profit too. So how is it bad if google does but not bad if Microsoft or Apple do? Cause Google keeps the end-product open? Cause google's business model, execution and products are better and customers love them more then compitors products? Yeah, right, the view of someone who failed to proper compete with products...

Edited 2012-07-30 08:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2