Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jul 2011 14:00 UTC
Microsoft Well, paint me red and call me a girl scout, I totally did not see this one coming at all. This is so utterly surprising it made my brain explode. Hold on to your panties, because this will rock your world. After pressuring several smaller Android vendors into submission (and yes, HTC is still relatively small compared to other players), Microsoft is now moving on to the big one: Redmond is demanding $15 for every Samsung Android device sold. Samsung's choices are simple: pay up, or face another epic lawsuit.
Thread beginning with comment 479900
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
wow
by TechGeek on Wed 6th Jul 2011 19:49 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Not2Sure: I dont know what you been smokin, but wow. You really need to lay off the drugs man.

I have seen lots and lots of people come and go saying "Linux infringes lots of patents." No one ever has anything that stands up in court. If you look at the patents listed in the B&N lawsuit, they are ridiculous. They won't stand a chance. They whole point that makes this work for Microsoft is that no one wants to incur the cost of fighting the battle. Even if they would win, they still lose.

You should do some reading on the whole Oracle vs Google thing. So far, 3-4 of Oracle's patents ave been thrown out. Their slam dunk case is looking weaker and weaker all the time.

As for Google getting involved, they may not be able to. Microsoft hasn't sued them. So while they make the software, they aren't distributing it so they aren't a party of the lawsuit. IANAL, but its at least a possibility.

And everyone is probably wrong about this not costing everyone. Microsoft in the past has not made exclusions for location of deployment. Their deals are usually for units shipped. So likely everyone with a phone is contributing to the Microsoft fund.

Reply Score: 6

RE: wow
by Windows Sucks on Wed 6th Jul 2011 23:58 in reply to "wow"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Not2Sure: I dont know what you been smokin, but wow. You really need to lay off the drugs man.

I have seen lots and lots of people come and go saying "Linux infringes lots of patents." No one ever has anything that stands up in court. If you look at the patents listed in the B&N lawsuit, they are ridiculous. They won't stand a chance. They whole point that makes this work for Microsoft is that no one wants to incur the cost of fighting the battle. Even if they would win, they still lose.


Interesting because so far MS is looking real good against Moto over those same patents. Also I could of sworn that Tom Tom got pimp slapped by Microsoft over Linux and Tom Tom settled.

In reality people are settling because they know what the end results are going to be. Better to pay $15 per phone now then a lump sum and $20 a phone or whatever later.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: wow
by r_a_trip on Thu 7th Jul 2011 13:07 in reply to "RE: wow"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Also I could of sworn that Tom Tom got pimp slapped by Microsoft over Linux and Tom Tom settled.

If you would have followed that case, you would have known that Tom Tom caved, because they were financially very weak and did not have the resources to fight the absurdity of the ugly kludge MS has patented to make short and long file names possible in the ancient FAT file system.

That patent hasn't been thoroughly contested and the Linux kernel development team simply opted to forego the obsolete 8.3 naming convention and worked around the patent that way. Simple, cheap, effective.

I wouldn't point to Tom Tom as the poster child of strong, irrefutable proof that MS has a quality patent portfolio. Nor that Linux is toast.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: wow
by lemur2 on Thu 7th Jul 2011 00:27 in reply to "wow"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As for Google getting involved, they may not be able to. Microsoft hasn't sued them. So while they make the software, they aren't distributing it so they aren't a party of the lawsuit. IANAL, but its at least a possibility.


IMO Microsoft hasn't sued Google primarily because software itself is not patentable, even in the US now, since the "Bilski" case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine-or-transformation_test

"In United States patent law, the machine-or-transformation test is a test of patent eligibility under which a claim to a process qualifies to be considered for patenting if it (1) is implemented with a particular machine, that is, one specifically devised and adapted to carry out the process in a way that is not concededly conventional and is not trivial; or else (2) transforms an article from one thing or state to another."


As Google provides it, Android is just software. It is not "implemented in a specific machine" until someone like B&N, HTC or Samsung put Android on to particular devices and sell them.

Hence, because of the machine or transformation test for patentability, Microsoft might be able under the law to sue B&N, HTC or Samsung but not Google (since Google aren't selling machines).

Edited 2011-07-07 00:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: wow
by Not2Sure on Thu 7th Jul 2011 07:07 in reply to "wow"
Not2Sure Member since:
2009-12-07

Oracle v Google has nothing to do with SCO and Linux, geek. I'm sure in your head they are somehow analogical because well ... no it's not at all.

And I hate to tell you this but your certainty regarding that action is unjustified to say the least. Please plug into your source of truth (aka wikipedia's search bar) non-final rejection and then google what you find to see how many patents received this procedural status that were ultimately upheld. Color me unsurprised that you seem to believe you are an authority based on what you read from headlines.

Telling other people to read more and you have zero clue. OSNews really is /.

Finally I keep hearing this notion echoed as if it were some kind of insight that these companies are paying only because they dont want to incur the cost of litigation. That's called indemnification. That's exactly what we're talking about. No wait, let's call it extortion and pretend its criminal! Jesus. Next up on the crazy train that is SlashOSNewsdot a story about how insurance is gambling!

If it were true that as you "experts" state, that any case would be laughed out of court in a day or so because the claims you've never read are SOOOO obviously false then there would be no need to seek indemnity against the risk because the cost is negligble compared to the cost of indemnifcation. QED

Just seriously go back to eating your burrito at your desk or whatever, but for God's sake wash your hands before you touch that keyboard, cuz that's just disgusting.

I'm kinda done responding to trolls here, sorry. Thanks for making the interwebs such a salon of "worthy" conversation.

Reply Parent Score: -1