Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#21

Post by yuhong »

dogma1138 wrote: post #19
mtgx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that was the case, which I don't think it is, Microsoft shouldn't be asking for stuff like FAT32 royalties. Think about it. Microsoft is asking for royalties for making devices that work with Windows . How crazy is that? Imagine if Google charged accessory makers for hooking into Android devices. I don't care if others do this sort of thing, too. It's just wrong. It should be an anti-trust issue, especially w…

Why shouldn't MSFT claim patents for FAT? They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS. You don't need to support FAT to allow transfer of files between your your Windows PC and the phone standards that abstract the file system like MTP and PTP exist for this very own reason. If you are as a phone maker want to enable users to mount their local phone storage as a fu…

The actual patents are on the FAT LFN extensions, not FAT itself.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#22

Post by melling »

dogma1138 wrote: post #3

I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…

Apple has a handful of patents that are questionable and they're the biggest patent troll in history? Seems like a bit of an exaggeration considering there's an entire industry built around patent trolling. Here are Microsoft's 300 Android patents. All legit?

http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.doc...

"Automatic Re-Authentication"

"Reducing Power Consumption in a Networked Battery-Operated Device Using Sensors"

"Browser Navigation for Devices With a Limited Input System"

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#24

Post by seanwilson »

dogma1138 wrote: post #3

I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…

> if MSFT gets royalties from these patents it would be irresponsible (to their shareholders, and employees) for them to ditch them

Actively enforcing patents like these hurts Microsoft's relationship with developers, hardware manufacturers, the open source community etc.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#25

Post by biot »

esolyt wrote: post #11
josephpmay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)

A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone. http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.

Yes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent, they claim novelty over having a single graphical element that the user needs to move with predefined start and end points. Another claim expands upon that saying there is a graphical arrow showing direction of movement. Another claim says there is help text explaining to the user what to do.

So yeah, on the surface one can easily state "they both have slide to unlock" but in order to discount Apple's patent you need to show that there exists prior art for the specific claims Apple made in its patent. The Neonode is not prior art for those claims.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#26

Post by true_religion »

mortehu wrote: post #17
dogma1138 wrote: post #3

I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…

Why do you want more scrutiny for Google's patents? As far as I know, they have never used their patents aggressively, only as a defense. In an environment containing trolls like Apple and Microsoft, I can't blame them.

Google receives as much scrutiny as Microsoft. What they don't receive is criticism, because it's hard to criticize something that is sitting around mostly doing nothing.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#27

Post by gillianseed »

dogma1138 wrote: post #19
mtgx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if that was the case, which I don't think it is, Microsoft shouldn't be asking for stuff like FAT32 royalties. Think about it. Microsoft is asking for royalties for making devices that work with Windows . How crazy is that? Imagine if Google charged accessory makers for hooking into Android devices. I don't care if others do this sort of thing, too. It's just wrong. It should be an anti-trust issue, especially w…

Why shouldn't MSFT claim patents for FAT? They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS. You don't need to support FAT to allow transfer of files between your your Windows PC and the phone standards that abstract the file system like MTP and PTP exist for this very own reason. If you are as a phone maker want to enable users to mount their local phone storage as a fu…

>They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS.

No, it was adopted in order to have Windows compability, which you need given the Windows desktop monopoly and since Windows refuses to support any filesystem it won't get royalties on.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#28

Post by mratzloff »

dogma1138 wrote: post #3

I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…

Why is Microsoft "irresponsible," in your words, if they don't extract maximum value from their patent portfolio, but Apple is a troll? Doesn't Apple likewise have an "obligation" to their shareholders to maximize their value based on your implication?

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#29

Post by JayHost »

draw_down wrote: post #23

Darn, with all this talk we hear of a "new Microsoft", it would be nice if they stopped doing this.

There's always another Microsoft hurdle.

Recently Windows 10 showing Tomb Raider advertisements. Windows 7 upgrading to 10 without permission.

This article claims Microsoft is embracing open source in a way that is not just to extend and distinguish.

In my limited knowledge it looks like adaptation. They tried to extinguish; didn't work They tried to extend and extinguish. Now they have to embrace.

Not so fun fact. "Microsoft paid a guy named Ken Brown to write a book saying Linus stole Linux from my MINIX 1 system." - Tanenbaum

It feels a lot like an abusive relationship people don't know how to walk away from.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#30

Post by jacquesm »

biot wrote: post #25
esolyt wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone. http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.

Yes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent, they claim novelty over having a single graphical element that the user needs to move with predefined start and end points. Another claim expands upon that saying there is a graphical arrow showing direction of movement. Another claim says there is help text e…

Funny, I have a slide-to-unlock device on my front door that fits that specification exactly, the only difference is that it is not 'on a computer'. It's a ridiculous patent.
Post reply on HN