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

Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

blogs.forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#31

Post by brudgers »

>"Intuitively, this doesn’t make much sense. Most people would say that Google has been more innovative than Microsoft in recent years"

That's not using intuition. That's using an opinion poll and ignores the length of time it takes to apply for and be granted a patent.

When the author goes on to point out that Google has 700 patents and Microsoft has 18,000, this would seem to be circumstantial evidence that Google's innovations are more likely to be based on the work of others than original research - particularly given the interest which companies have to file patents defensively.

This is not to say that Microsoft's claims are valid (regardless of the obvious fact that the past actions of Armonk have no bearing on their validity) or that software patents are a good thing.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#32

Post by [deleted] »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #14
eropple wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of MSR stuff has ended up in the hands of other groups and ended up in shipped projects. Just look at Wikipedia: their C# research (Polyphonic C# became Cw became Joins Concurrency), F#, Seadragon, Accelerator (pretty cool, BTW), freaking ClearType... the list isn't exactly short. Surface aside, they haven't produced commercialized products, but that's not the point . Come on. This stuff is easy . Why the cont…

F# is probably your only valid point though I'm not sure I'd call yet another functional programming language an innovation. Seadragon is Zooming technology that is, at best, a decent demo at this point (and probably designed to be patented). For people who don't know what we're talking about: http://zoom.it Accelerator I'd never even heard of which is probably because it was introduced in 2006 and no finished produc…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#33

Post by Dn_Ab »

BananaRepublic wrote: post #24
DaveMebs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are going to be plenty of things that come out of MS Research that people don't realize came from there (examples: PhotoSynth, Kinect). Expecting an exhaustive list is unrealistic. Furthermore, MS Research was founded over a decade ago when patent trolling was not as big a deal. It's pretty clear if you read about it that Bill Gates wanted to create the successor to the great post-war corporate research groups…

Well, Kinect owes quite alot to PrimeSense so I certainly wouldn't categorize it as a 'MS Research' product.

Balance. In seeking to lift one group you cast aside another hard working group of people. Certainly PrimeSense contributed much, but to discount the hard work of those in MS Research as something less by wrapping them in quotes only serves to despoil your message. You commit that which you wish to redress.

See what Johnny Chung Lee said of his time there for a more balanced look of the records.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#34

Post by crizCraig »

rapind wrote: post #30
mwsherman wrote: post #29

To be clear, the problem is incentives, i.e., the patent system. It makes this behavior legal and profitable. Expecting Microsoft (or Apple or IBM) to leave money on the table is silly.

Exactly. If they weren't cashing in on this problem their shareholder's would be pretty pissed and heads would roll.

Should Google do the same thing to Microsoft? Google has shareholders. If they did, I would lose respect for Google that I have already lost for Miscrosoft. Somehow, I don't think Google will, and not just because Windows Mobile is closed source.

I think public opinion/brand reputation is an important thing to consider in these types of situations. For example, this poll shows only 32% of people agree with the strategy: http://www.wepolls.com/r/584161/Should-Microsoft-continue-to...

I wonder what effect that has on the other 68% next time they have a choice between Microsoft and someone else.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#35

Post by riffraff »

nextparadigms wrote: post #2

I wonder if Microsoft has employees working on trivial things they can patent, so they can go after other companies with similar technology after that. Is it possible to build something without infringing on some patent anymore? (even if nobody is suing you)

notice: everyone is dirty at this game, e.g. google's recent patent application for google doodle "A system provides a periodically changing story line and/or a special event company logo to entice users to access a web page."[1]

[1]http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sec...

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#36

Post by pyre »

kooshball wrote: post #19
KeyBoardG wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same with the FaceBook + Skype deal, Microsoft is putting their weight against Google. The big boys fighting it out, fun to watch.

Although Microsoft has a small stake in Facebook and has been a partner for a while now, the Skype integration was probably started before the buyout offer.

Impossible! I Could Code That Over A Weekend(tm).

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#37

Post by Gustomaximus »

An important point not mentioned in this article is that whilst MS are demanding payment, it is believed that they will lower the payment for producing Windows phones. I would guess this is a huge part of this demanding payment strategy and not just the cash.

Source for pushing Window on phones: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/06/samsung-microsoft-...

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#38

Post by mwsherman »

crizCraig wrote: post #34
rapind wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If they weren't cashing in on this problem their shareholder's would be pretty pissed and heads would roll.

Should Google do the same thing to Microsoft? Google has shareholders. If they did, I would lose respect for Google that I have already lost for Miscrosoft. Somehow, I don't think Google will, and not just because Windows Mobile is closed source. I think public opinion/brand reputation is an important thing to consider in these types of situations. For example, this poll shows only 32% of people agree with the strate…

Well, that's an argument of self-interest. Does the PR cost outweigh the profit?

I think a lot of firms come to the conclusion that the profit is bigger. Most of the world (consumers) doesn't give two shakes about patents.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#39

Post by btilly »

SwellJoe wrote: post #21
TomOfTTB wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the things Microsoft has done well is to pick the right pricing plan and the right industry. By making it a per unit fee on Smartphones you make it easy for manufacturers to pass the cost on to the consumer who then subsidizes it through a contract with their provider. The $5 per unit HTC pays Microsoft is only $.20 a month when passed directly on to the consumer and spread out over 2 years.

This, of course, has the side effect (or possibly even intended effect) of making Windows Phone seem more cost-effective. "Free" software isn't free, if it includes a Microsoft tax, anyway. I just hope the large Android ecosystem starts pushing for patent reform, and soon. This is just fundamentally broken market behavior...Microsoft is getting protection money. They don't even have to provide products people want, a…

Microsoft loves arrangements where you have to pay them whether or not you're using their product. In fact this was the subject of the first anti-trust case against them which was settled out of court. (Not many people remember this one.) See http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/467487/the_antitrus... for confirmation.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#40

Post by nextparadigms »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #9
nkassis wrote: post #5

"So Android, like every large software product on the planet, infringes numerous Microsoft patents." while that might be true you can't tell until there is a lawsuit. Right now Microsoft is claiming this but no one wants to bet the other way.

One of the things Microsoft has done well is to pick the right pricing plan and the right industry. By making it a per unit fee on Smartphones you make it easy for manufacturers to pass the cost on to the consumer who then subsidizes it through a contract with their provider. The $5 per unit HTC pays Microsoft is only $.20 a month when passed directly on to the consumer and spread out over 2 years.

I don't understand that logic. It's $5 taken from the cost of the device, and because of those $5 baked into the cost, it probably makes the devices $10-$15 extra at the retail store.

Also they are planning on charging Samsung $15 license fee, so that would be a lot for a $150 phone.

Post reply on HN