Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Apr 2013 16:37 UTC
Windows Microsoft's Terry Myerson, corporate vice president of Windows Phone, talks about the competition. "With iPhone, I sense that it's running out of steam. With iOS, [Apple] just added a fifth row of icons. Android is... kind of a mess. Look at Samsung - there's clearly mutiny going on. The only OEM making money off of Android is Samsung." There's truth to all these statements, which makes it all the more surprising that Microsoft appears to be unable to properly capitalise on them. Sure, WP appears to be doing well in a few select markets, but by no means the kind of success Microsoft and (Nokia) was banking on. Microsoft will pull through. Nokia on the other hand...
Thread beginning with comment 558924
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Bleah
by TemporalBeing on Wed 17th Apr 2013 14:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Bleah"
TemporalBeing
Member since:
2007-08-22

"
Name the final judgement or settlement terms for any Android OEM?


This is misleading. Microsoft makes bank off of almost every Android device manufactured by a major OEM and now recently even another ODM with Foxconn.
"

While that has been stated, please quote how much each pays. Show the money trail.

The problem is, the numbers are not public. For all we know MS could be paying out more than they are receiving back. So please, stop quoting Microsoft's press information and quote real, hard numbers for individual OEMs.

Nokia is looking to severely unload on Android with VP8 patents, the really hard to design around, non FRAND, very powerful types.


Again, don't look at accusations. Look at the real numbers. VP8 has not yet been found to necessarily contain any patents, let alone any enforceable patents.

Its again, misleading to suggest that because the extremely lengthy legal process has not been completely exhausted, that the judgements up to this point in time are invalid on those merits alone.


Until you have a final judgement, then it is only speculation as to what will happen in the end.

Look at The SCO Group. They predicated a win all along, but not only did they lose (even after having the trial tilted in their favor), but they are out of business. Sure Microsoft, Apple, Nokia may remain in business, but litigations in court are hard to predict, especially as one party may decide to settle before too much gets out to the public.

That is why I asked for final judgements and settlement information. Nothing else can be relied on as it can all be appealed. Patents can be revoked or found to be non-infringed during the process; and products can be modified to remove infringement.

Samsung has been found to infringe on Apple's patents. The case is on appeal, but they have been found to infringe. You don't call a convicted murderer innocent because he hasnt exhausted the decades of appeals he's entitled to.


FYI - Samsung was found to infringe by a jury that didn't consider any evidence of prior art; even as the USPTO found among the same evidence prior art. So it's hard to say the jury got it right, especially as appeals proceed. Again, that's why I asked for final judgements and settlements, to try to keep it simple for the conversation.

Hint: The legal system is painfully slow.


Yes it is. And with respect to patents and copyrights you have to wait until it is done to determine the actual result.

What you should instead consider are the relatives strengths and weaknesses of the cases at hand. That to me is a much more accurate representation of Android's situation.


And you are qualified to make such determinations? That's why we have the courts, to settle things people can't agree on using defined processes and procedures. If it was simple enough that a layman could make a determination then we wouldn't need the courts.

When looked at from this point of view, its easy to find various instances of dangerous situations for Android. Apple still has pending litigation in multiple countries that are all still very dangerous.

Oracle likely has a stronger case still than people consider. The Judge's ruling in its case really was odd and unprecedented if you look at past case law, and Android could still be found to be in the wrong there.

I mentioned Nokia with their VP8 patents, but there's also HTC who routinely gets smacked around for various patents by various individuals.


Again, neither you nor I are qualified to make such determinations.

Microsoft has again signed up a large majority of these OEMs for a reason. The likes of Samsung doesn't go into a contract with Microsoft lightly, considering they didn't take a license for Apple on what are probably more favorable terms, the fact that they took one from Microsoft is telling.


There's multiple factors involved.

For instance, some decided it was easier and cheaper just to pay off a racketeer than to go to court to fight it out.

So unless you know the motives of the individual companies involved, you don't know why they did it. It may have had nothing to do with any actual patents, but merely the threat.

There is an incredible amount of legal uncertainty surrounding Android, and trying to equate it with a platform like Windows Phone, where OEMs are idemnified is wrong.


Stop spreading the FUD line. You are not getting yourself anywhere with it.

You certainly don't seem to understand how court proceedings work, or why one can only really count final judgements. And the OEMs for Android that have taken it to court seem to have generally done very well in tossing patents, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[8]: Bleah
by Nelson on Wed 17th Apr 2013 14:46 in reply to "RE[7]: Bleah"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I just think we have a fundamental disagreement. You can tell a lot from how a case is proceeding and how a Judge is ruling. You can also infer a lot from established legal precedent and objective analysis.

There's a reason why essentially the only people who thought Samsung would prevail over Apple were people on Groklaw and OSNews. Everyone else understood that Samsung was in for a bruising.

Yes, these cases can be appealed, and the process is long, but would it yield a different result? What are the odds that the verdict will be overturned?

I don't really buy the notion that you can't put forth your own analysis, you can qualify it by saying you're not a professional, but I think not doing so is a bit of a cop out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Bleah
by TemporalBeing on Wed 17th Apr 2013 15:01 in reply to "RE[8]: Bleah"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

I just think we have a fundamental disagreement. You can tell a lot from how a case is proceeding and how a Judge is ruling. You can also infer a lot from established legal precedent and objective analysis.

There's a reason why essentially the only people who thought Samsung would prevail over Apple were people on Groklaw and OSNews. Everyone else understood that Samsung was in for a bruising.


Not really. There were a lot of people calling things both ways.

However, Groklaw also has a pretty good track record of calling cases. And for Samsung and Apple, its not over.

Yes, these cases can be appealed, and the process is long, but would it yield a different result? What are the odds that the verdict will be overturned?


For Samsung it's actually pretty good. They're debating over how to handle and what will be in a second trial right now. Apple wants one thing, which would be very limited, and Samsung is raising issues of doing just that limited thing, saying the whole thing needs to get redone. We've yet to see how the judge will rule on that; and we've yet to see how the appeals will go.

But given what we know - the documented misconduct by the jury foreman, the ignoring of the court orders by the jury, etc - we know that we need to wait until all is settled to really understand it as layman.

I don't really buy the notion that you can't put forth your own analysis, you can qualify it by saying you're not a professional, but I think not doing so is a bit of a cop out.


Sure, you can do your own analysis. But without the right training you have nothing to rely on to ensure that you are coming to the correct analysis. And being a professional you need to do just that.

It does not help a company for one of the engineers give a legal analysis of the company's standing. It doesn't help for a lawyer to do so without consulting an engineer either; but the lawyer is trained in how do those things, how to get from the engineer what they need, and how to read the courts (past and present) to give the best advice.

As a layman and someone not with that training you have at best a 50/50 chance of getting right, but more likely you'll get it wrong.

Groklaw has a good history of making the right call by applying the training they received (PJ's a paralegal, and Mark Webbink is a lawyer) to properly interpret the law, and read the courts, and explain what is going on and how it is progressing.

So, no - it's not a cop-out to say we need to only look at the final judgements and settlements. It's too premature to look at anything else for the question that was asked as they cannot be reliable enough for the answer; unless of course you have some inside access and can read all the sealed materials, etc that is only available to the parties and the judge.

Reply Parent Score: 2