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.
Thread beginning with comment 528859
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by some1
by some1 on Sun 29th Jul 2012 19:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by some1"
some1
Member since:
2010-10-05

I don't think we know how much they actually ask for those patents. There are rumors about $10-15 per device, but then there are rumors about much smaller amounts, or even that MS ends up paying money as a result of cross-licensing (like was the case with Novell).
I agree that VFAT patent is garbage and should have been invalidated long time ago.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by some1
by Bennie on Sun 29th Jul 2012 20:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by some1"
Bennie Member since:
2012-06-14

I thought Microsoft could not use their monopoly position on the desktop market to get an advantage in another market (patent extortion). They still have a desktop monopoly and because of their refusal to support other file systems, manufacturers of Flash memory are obliged to put FAT file systems on SD-cards, and memory sticks.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by cfgr on Sun 29th Jul 2012 22:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

Exactly! I've been wondering the same thing. How is this not an obvious abuse of their monopoly? They force FAT on all device makers and then collect royalties. Without their desktop monopoly different, patent-free and simply better filesystems could be implemented.

Why is there no anti-trust investigation into this behaviour?

Edited 2012-07-29 22:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by MollyC on Mon 30th Jul 2012 03:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

You thought wrong.
There's been no ruling that Microsoft is prohibited from enforcing its patents. Where'd you get that from, slashdot circa 2003?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by some1
by zima on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 21:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

They still have a desktop monopoly and because of their refusal to support other file systems, manufacturers of Flash memory are obliged to put FAT file systems on SD-cards, and memory sticks.

Windows supports other file systems perfectly well, Microsoft does nothing to prevent that - you install a driver, and voilĂ . Manufacturers of flash memory aren't obliged to anything, they are free to come up with some standard of theirs.

Reply Parent Score: 2