| 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 |
 |
Reality check: Microsoft charging vendors a $15 patent fee per Android device? | |
|
||
| Time: 11:31 EST/16:31 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
I’m thinking this amount is probably Microsoft’s saber-rattling price — the one meant to scare Android vendors into signing onto the growing list of Android OEMs who’ve decided it’s safer to settle than fight Microsoft over its IP claims. It’s definitely a lot higher than the $5 per device that one analyst claimed Microsoft is getting from Android phone vendors like HTC who’ve agreed to pay Microsoft for patent coverage. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:01:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 7/6/2011 12:18:46 PM |
|
It’s worth noting that Microsoft officials have not shared publicly a list of Microsoft patents upon which they contend the Android operating system infringes. B&N said in its response to Microsoft’s complaint that Microsoft officials told them the Android-based Nook infringed on six of Microsoft’s patents, and that Microsoft expected B&N to sign a non-disclosure agreement to get more specifics (something that B&N has declined to do, according to its response).
What. A. Scam. The two obvious questions that come to mind: 1) why is MS being so cagey about which patents? Unless you're an unethical submarine patent troll, you generally want people to know about your patent so they can choose to either pay to use it or not pay and avoid infringing on it. Secondly, when MS approaches a potential victim, why does it insist on an NDA before it will reveal which magic, super-secret patents are being infringed? What does MS have to fear from Company X publicly stating "MS is accusing us of violating patent XYZ." Indeed, why does MS fear any exposure of details? Is it trying to protect weak patents from scrutiny by the public? Crowd-sourcing may find prior art to help invalidate the patent in question. Or maybe MS doesn't like the optics of it being seen as a bully using very weak patents instead of competing on the merits of its products? At any rate, soon all the chumps will have paid their protection money and only the heavies will be left. Like I've said a number of times before, why isn't MS suing Google, you know, the guys that make and license Android? MS has already milked all the minor players. Now it's going to try it with Samsung? My guess is that Samsung wants deeper cross-licensing access to MS' general patents and so will go along with this, and MS will declare it is all about Android and nothing more. |
| #2 By 8556 (173.29.0.175) at 7/6/2011 12:47:21 PM |
| #1: Telling the opposition the specific patents that MS claims are being infringed upon gives the opposition the information they need to revise their code so as to not infringe said patents. The proposed NDA may state that the code cannot be revised to work around the patents once the information is revealed. So, MS holds the better cards here. |
| #3 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 7/6/2011 3:52:51 PM |
|
#2: Yes, but telling the opposition which patents are being infringed is kind of par for the course, is it not? I'm not a patent lawyer but I've been around long enough to see that it's common, if not usual, for the patents to be specified. Remember the proxy war MS fought with Linux using SCO? One of the main sticking points during the early game was that SCO made lots of noise about all these valuable patents but never quite got around to indicating with specificity which patents were being infringed. SCO was being called out, mocked and ridiculed for keeping it all a big secret. MS is doing the same thing this time around; creating maximum FUD value by not revealing. SCO's patents were horseshit. I suspect the same of MS'.
I'm not too sure about your last point. I do not believe that MS has any standing, nor legal weight. to insist that the infringer not be able to change their product to non-infringing, and must instead pay MS a licensing fee. If MS, as I suspect, is using crap patents, then it's in its best interests to keep that a secret. |
| #4 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 7/7/2011 4:12:07 PM |
|
You gotta love the irony. Microsoft is getting $15 an Android based device and Google, not so much?
Plonk! By the way, if Microsoft didn't have legitimate claim to the patents in question, don't you think that Google would be taking them to court over it? Thought so . . . . I could get into more details, but I am under an NDA. Shhhhhhhhhhh!!!! lol |
| #5 By 15406 (209.87.228.158) at 7/8/2011 7:39:51 AM |
|
#4: Fact-challenged, as usual. They're trying to get $15 per handset from Samsung. They're getting substantially less than that from the other minor players who rolled over for MS' protection racket.
By the way, if Microsoft didn't have legitimate claim to the patents in question, don't you think that Google would be taking them to court over it? No, I don't think that. What would Google sue them for, exactly? While scummy as usual, MS isn't doing anything illegal. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 312 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:01:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
