Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Sep 2011 15:36 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless This is the biggest one yet. Microsoft's professional extortion campaign - the third side of the same triangle it shares with Apple and Oracle - has finally hit Samsung. The two companies have signed a patent licensing agreement concerning Samsung's use of Android, in which a rumoured fee of $15 (!) per device will flow from Seoul to Redmond. Not entirely coincidentally, that's about the price of a Windows Phone 7 license.
Thread beginning with comment 491054
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Thom has it backwards
by MollyC on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:06 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes, and that's precisely because Google didn't bother to think of anything new, and that's in part because they willfully violate patents rather than thinking of new ways to do things. They decided to just copy and give their software away for free, thus undercutting everyone else while stagnating innovation themselves.

Were it up to Google, innovation would stop with Android. And nobody else could enter the market because you can't compete against "free".

Well, Android's not so free anymore, and Google might finally have to actually innovate to think of ways to do things that don't violate existing patents.

Lastly, Google could've licensed the Microosft patents years ago for a pittance, but were too arrogant or too shady or to "clever" to do so ("clever" as in, "since we don't charge directly for our software, we can violate patents willy-nilly and nobody can sue us!! Our "partners" will have to deal with it, but that's their problem; we'll make sure its their problem and not ours by refusing indemnification.") Instead of licensing those patents for only a few million dollars years ago, or better yet, enter into a cross-licensing deal, they decided to violate the patents and years later had to pay over twelve BILLION for a failing Motorola company in order to get some outdated patents fatten their meager patent portfolio. Samsung wasn't too impressed with those Motorola patents, apparently.

I'll allow that Google's violation of Apple patents couldn't have been prevented by licensing them for a pittance years ago because Apple doesn't offer its patents for licensing; they instead just force competing products off the market without giveing the competitors even a chance to license the patents in question. But Google could've licensed the MS patents years ago for cheap.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Thom has it backwards
by dsmogor on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:44 in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

Actually they did and Apple have been copying from Android in ver. 4 and is supposed to continue in 5.
They also innovated java exectution making it suitable for battery constrained devices. Actually would be better off licencing dalvik to J2ME companies insted of suing Google.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Thom has it backwards
by umad on Wed 28th Sep 2011 19:55 in reply to "RE: Thom has it backwards"
umad Member since:
2011-08-18

Actually they did and Apple have been copying from Android in ver. 4 and is supposed to continue in 5.


Can you cite examples... and no, not the inclusion of cloud technology or associated services. That isn't copying any more than Google creating web based email was copying hotmail.


They also innovated java exectution making it suitable for battery constrained devices.


They innovated a technology that they didn't have legal allowance to use in the first place?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Thom has it backwards
by JAlexoid on Wed 28th Sep 2011 21:36 in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes, and that's precisely because Google didn't bother to think of anything new, and that's in part because they willfully violate patents rather than thinking of new ways to do things. They decided to just copy and give their software away for free, thus undercutting everyone else while stagnating innovation themselves.

You really don't know anything about patents, do you?
FYI: Innovation lacks the inventive step to be patentable.


But Google could've licensed the MS patents years ago for cheap.

So... When did Microsoft offer licenses?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Thom has it backwards
by phoudoin on Thu 29th Sep 2011 07:35 in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

"Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes"

Which themselves are copycats of other OSes too, and the track goes up to first OS ever made.
The earlier OSes makers just had a luck that 1) nobody has now and 2) allw them now to abuse to lock the situation in order to make this situation continues forever: they made their OSes while escaping patent troll was not even necessary.

These days, *they* are the patent trolls. Robin Hood became a Sheriff.

It's written "do what we say, not what we did." all over the wall.

Edited 2011-09-29 07:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Thom has it backwards
by segedunum on Sun 2nd Oct 2011 21:50 in reply to "Thom has it backwards"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes, and that's precisely because Google didn't bother to think of anything new, and that's in part because they willfully violate patents rather than thinking of new ways to do things. They decided to just copy and give their software away for free, thus undercutting everyone else while stagnating innovation themselves.

Ahhhh, Molly the Microsoft troll is still around I see..........

Lastly, Google could've licensed the Microosft patents years ago for a pittance, but were too arrogant...

They were too arrogant to pay up the protection money Microsoft demanded for non-existent patents! ROTFL.

...years later had to pay over twelve BILLION for a failing Motorola company

On the contrary, it means they don't need others to manufacture hardware for Android now.

in order to get some outdated patents fatten their meager patent portfolio.

Motorola invented the mobile. Nuff said.

Upset that Google isn't giving in like all the other weak minded and clueless companies, eh?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Thom has it backwards
by zima on Wed 5th Oct 2011 19:10 in reply to "RE: Thom has it backwards"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

On the contrary, it means they don't need others to manufacture hardware for Android now.
...
Motorola invented the mobile. Nuff said.
Upset that Google isn't giving in like all the other weak minded and clueless companies, eh?

You know, it's not quite so clear. Motorola Mobility certainly is a failing company, struggling to be financially in the clear for quite some time now, borderline almost-achieving it mostly via concentrating the efforts on their remaining few decent markets, retreating from almost all others worldwide (and I can't imagine returns to be easy). Turning the wheel on that, when Moto is under Google, has a real risk of alienating other Android makers - also the big few who really push the adoption of Android - so sensibly maintaining own handset division might prove quite a headache for Google.

Then there is a real possibility that Google gave in to Motorola, was strong-armed into a deal much closer to the price-per-share that Moto wanted (remember Motorola CEO publicly contemplating the possibility of using WinPhone7, or launching a patent war of their own at other Android makers, in the week or two before Google acquisition announcement?)

How Motorola was one of the pioneers of mobile phone technology (with large part of that certainly remaining also with the "infrastructure" part of Motorola) doesn't have to mean so much when MS snatches Nokia... ;p (and then, a comparable situations doesn't mean too much, for quite some time now, to Daimler AG)

Reply Parent Score: 2