Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 10th May 2010 14:55 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 423563
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
H264 is bad because it shackles the web to a proprietary standard, which will hurt innovation and the little guy on the web, while also opening the door to litigation.
MPEG-LA clearly states on the AVC licensing page of their website that only commercially acting enterprises with more than 100,000 customers per year are required to pay licensing fees. All others are free to go.
There is no such clause regarding Android patents by MS.
I tell you who "the little guy" is: It's not someone with more than 100,000 customers per year. It's the self-employed guy who owns a small phone shop and who's now in constant threat to be sued by Microsoft when he sells Android phones that are not from HTC -- no matter if he has less or more than 100,000 customers.
If Microsoft really were certain about its patents being infringed upon, it would have no qualms about showing us the patents in question.
MS showed the affected patents to HTC. If those weren't valid, HTC would not signed the deal. In fact in a potential battle against Microsoft, HTC would have the upper hand: HTC is the biggest manufacturer of Windows Mobile phones.
If HTC was to drop its complete Windows Mobile lineup, Windows Phone 7 would be dead before it even launched. MS would be wiped off the handheld map.
BTW: Did you even ask Microsoft which patents are the cause of the licensing deal? Or are you just making it up that "Microsoft has been remarkably reluctant to show us proof"?
Microsoft has an entire website dedicated to patent licensing, along with a contact e-mail address:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/ipl...
Edited 2010-05-10 16:24 UTC
HTC is the biggest manufacturer of Windows Mobile phones.
And they are not stupid enough to drop that valuable segment. Plain and simple.
BTW: Did you even ask Microsoft which patents are the cause of the licensing deal?
OSNews probably did not, but CNet did. And the patents remain undisclosed.
Or are you just making it up that "Microsoft has been remarkably reluctant to show us proof"?
Oh, you must be unaware of the claims from Microsoft that Linux infrindes on over 200 patents?
Microsoft has an entire website dedicated to patent licensing, along with a contact e-mail address:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/ipl...
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/en/us/intellectualproperty/ipl...
The only actual publicly disclosed agreement on IP is with Novell. So read the page before you refer to it, please. The only place where HTC appears is "Exchange ActiveSync Protocol Licensees"





Member since:
2005-06-29
H264 is bad because it shackles the web to a proprietary standard, which will hurt innovation and the little guy on the web, while also opening the door to litigation.
It's not the deal itself people get angry about - it's the fac tthat despite years of empty threats, we still have not one single shred of proof regarding these so-called patents.
Uhm, we don't know that. HTC might simply be brushing MS off because it is busy enough dealing with Apple. Again, we have no clue as to WHAT Android is supposedly infringing upon. Show us the proof - Microsoft has been remarkably reluctant to do so, which raises a lot of flags.
If Microsoft really were certain about its patents being infringed upon, it would have no qualms about showing us the patents in question. Right now, it reeks of FUD.
Edited 2010-05-10 15:56 UTC