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 528864
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by some1
by cfgr on Sun 29th Jul 2012 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by some1"
Member since:

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[5]: Comment by some1
by zima on Thu 2nd Aug 2012 21:55 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by some1"
zima Member since:

Why do you want to investigate flash manufacturers? Because it's their action (or inaction) that is responsible for the situation...

...they do not come up with some filesystem of their own (drivers semi-automatically installed, at first connection, from a very small partition on the flash pretending to be a CD-ROM, for example - to avoid any usage of FAT). Microsoft doesn't force FAT on anybody who really doesn't want it (and BTW, none of the flash drives connected right now to my Windows PC are FAT-formatted)

Reply Parent Score: 2