| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
What Microsoft wants from Google | |
|
||
| Time: 00:08 EST/05:08 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft wants access to any technology that sells. That appears to be what its suit against Motorola is all about. At issue, writes deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez (right, from CNET), are “key features that users have come to expect from every smartphone,” specifically the ability to sync mail and contacts between the phone and the Web. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 304 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:41:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/4/2010 9:48:19 AM |
| I'm having a hard time seeing through all the MS hypocrisy here. Weren't they crying just last week about how software patents are so unfair? It must be unfair when MS has to pay i4i, but it's fine & dandy when MS starts threatening others with their anti-Linux patent FUD again. And don't get me started on how fundamentally obvious their patents are. Why innovate (especially when you are chronically late to the party) when you can litigate? |
| #2 By 2332 (173.13.97.180) at 10/4/2010 3:27:31 PM |
|
I don't recall Microsoft every saying software patents are unfair. I believe you're making that up.
They do decry certain patents (as we all should) that cover things that are obvious. For istance, One-Click Purchasing. Microsoft has a massive number of patents, and its policy has historically to use them defensively only. In this particular case, it doesn't look like a FUD attempt. Instead, they're trying to force Google to cross-license. This is the exact same tactic used by Apple. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2010 8:29:47 AM |
|
#2: They do decry certain patents (as we all should) that cover things that are obvious.
Except the blatantly obvious patents that MS owns and asserts. Microsoft has a massive number of patents, and its policy has historically to use them defensively only. Is that right? I guess all that "Linux infringes on our unspecified patents" stuff was just a long-running, multi-year gag? A performance art piece by Ballmer and Gutierrez? In this particular case, it doesn't look like a FUD attempt. It didn't strike you as weird when one day MS makes a big deal about their patent protection for WinPhone7 (or whatever it's called this month), and the next it's launching a patent attack on Motorola? Instead, they're trying to force Google to cross-license. Perhaps. We'll see what happens if this action starts moving anywhere. |
| #4 By 2332 (173.13.97.180) at 10/5/2010 9:12:57 AM |
|
#2 - What patents has Microsoft used to attack 3rd parties that are "obvious"?
I briefly looked over the patents in question here, and they're anything but obvious. The final product seems like a no brainer, but Microsoft is claiming that Google is implementing the technology the same way Microsoft patented. RIM also sycronizes data to phones, but they are not in violations because their mechanism was different. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2010 11:56:16 AM |
|
#4: What patents has Microsoft used to attack 3rd parties that are "obvious"?
The FAT LFN dustup comes to mind. I also wouldn't be the least bit surprised if most of the patents MS's waving around are obvious and covered by prior art. I hope Motorola, backed by Google, fight this and shove those patents up Ballmer's catflap. Another take on it: http://www.osnews.com/story/23872/Microsoft_s_Anti-Android_FUD_Campaign_in_Full_Swing |
| #6 By 2960 (72.205.26.164) at 10/5/2010 12:34:52 PM |
|
"The FAT LFN dustup comes to mind. "
I don't understand why that one hasn't expired... My Grandfather invented the Stump Axe, Two-Way Hydraulic Woodsplitter, and the Snow Basket (not kidding). His patents eventually expired, and now everyone makes them. This post was edited by TechLarry on Tuesday, October 05, 2010 at 12:35. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2010 1:30:44 PM |
| #6: That was back when patents were doing what they were meant to do -- to provide a window of exclusivity to an inventor to benefit from his invention before it went into the public common. Are they being used like that today? Sadly, no. Now the most obvious, idiotic thing can be patented and said patent is then used to stifle innovation or lock up a market. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/5/2010 3:45:58 PM |
|
This chart helpfully shows the absurd mobile landscape as it pertains to patents:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/04/microsoft-motorola-android-patent-lawsuit |
| #9 By 8556 (173.27.244.6) at 10/7/2010 12:47:42 PM |
| Latch: I patented the use of the phrase "idiot thing" when it is used to describe any entity, place, activity, entropy, or material or non-material good. You owe me a quarter. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/7/2010 1:32:26 PM |
|
#9: I patented the use of the phrase "idiot thing" when it is used to describe any entity, place, activity...
Hmm, I guess my usage of 'idiotic thing' could be considered a derivative work? |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 10/8/2010 3:29:42 PM |
|
Another good take on the situation:
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Is-Microsoft-running-out-of-steam-1102654.html |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 304 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:41:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
