81–90 of 133 posts
As long as litigation is of a positive net present value (i.e. expected return is positive) then they have a duty to their shareholders to undertake it. It's just the way of the world, its not like the CEO is taking into account this when thinking of 'the way microsoft should be' its just the state of tech innovation at the moment.
That's not actually a thing. Corporate law gives officers great discretion in how to run the business.
As long as litigation is of a positive net present value (i.e. expected return is positive) then they have a duty to their shareholders to undertake it. It's just the way of the world, its not like the CEO is taking into account this when thinking of 'the way microsoft should be' its just the state of tech innovation at the moment.
This is a myth that has been debunked many, many times.
As long as litigation is of a positive net present value (i.e. expected return is positive) then they have a duty to their shareholders to undertake it. It's just the way of the world, its not like the CEO is taking into account this when thinking of 'the way microsoft should be' its just the state of tech innovation at the moment.
Is that supposed to make it better?
I really hate how people hurry to come up with excuses for corporations and their representatives acting like jerks. They can take responsibility for their actions just like the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Neonode is not prior art for those claims. Well, CAFC thinks that Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious: > We reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant. From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Page 28
From the case: > Apple asserted claim 8 of the ’721 patent This is the one claim Apple asserted. This patent claim states: > 8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions > to display visual cues to communicate a direction of > movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device. That the court found this one claim to be obvious doesn't negate the remaining 14 claims of the patent (excepting, perha…
I don't know what are you arguing right now
Darn, with all this talk we hear of a "new Microsoft", it would be nice if they stopped doing this.
> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensing fee than to pay a small fortune and take even a remote chance of failure in court. > Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents. So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?
Give me a billion dollars and I write you a mobile OS. Shoot me an email if you are interested.
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…
How much longer can MS collect on FAT32? The wiki page says patent terms are 20 years in the U.S. and FAT32 was introduced in August 1996. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT32
It's apparently OK to rip off the best ideas while learning from the mistakes of more then 15 years of work done pioneering by Palm, Microsoft and Apple and slapping them on top of a free OS and just paying nothing. It's hard to see the difference between the first iPhones and Galaxy phones, in terms of home screen and hardware. You can't tell them apart at first glance. A clear rip-off. The patents Apple used to sue…
Copying is how we advance civilization. Every great idea was built on the work of others, or "Standing on the shoulders of Giants" as Newton would say.
The current framework for IP protection isn't working. There is no evidence that it is accelerating the pace of innovation.
We need to shift our viewpoint and realize that copying is a good thing.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The group of people that still hates Microsoft by and large will always hate them until they die. Even if they opened up the patents they'd still be hated for "being evil". There's next to nothing to gain from doing and there's billions to lose.