Microsoft’s Android Shakedown • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#51

Post by marcf » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 6:58 PM UTC

nextparadigms wrote: post #41

marcf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It undeniably hurts HTC's profits though. Sucks for those that have to pay this Microsoft tax. And it also does hurt Google in the sense that this cost is being passed to Google's customers rather than Google taking this burden.

HTC is paying $5 per phone, but they also get protection against Apple. I don't think HTC would've signed the deal with Microsoft, if it wasn't for the Apple lawsuit.

I figure though HTC's profit per phone is likely on the order of $20 or less? (I'm guessing here but I should be in the ballpark.) Thus $5 per phone is hugely significant.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#52

Post by hvs » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 6:59 PM UTC

I was talking to someone who once worked at IBM, and he mentioned that they give a bonus (something like $2000-$5000) for each patent that you receive. He said that employees would get together in small groups and take turns filing patents and sharing the proceeds with the group. IBM, of course, paid for all the fees for filing the patent.

Just thought I'd share this random anecdote..

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#53

Post by radicaldreamer » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:10 PM UTC

Oracle's Android Shakedown: http://www.cio.com.au/article/392822/oracle_win_would_strain...

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#54

Post by hvs » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:12 PM UTC

mixmax wrote: post #23

" You might think Google could deal with this by just not infringing Microsoft’s patents, but that’s not how software patents work. Android has roughly 10 million lines of code. Auditing 10 million lines of code for compliance with 18,000 patents is an impossible task " There's a great startup in that sentence for whoever cracks the algorithmic challenges.

I'm pretty sure that "algorithmic challenge" is NP-complete.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#55

Post by sandGorgon » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:17 PM UTC

DaveMebs wrote: post #20

TomOfTTB wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

ummm ... didnt Photosynth come from the SeaDragon acquisition and Kinect came from the PrimeSense partnership ?

OTOH, I think .NET/Mono are awesome pieces of language innovation.

EDIT: oops - didnt see that this was mentioned below.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#56

Post by alanh » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:20 PM UTC

> Most people would say that Google has been more innovative than Microsoft in recent years—especially in the mobile phone market

Would they? I don’t think so. Android is iPhone + Symbian + Blackberry + Java. Windows Phone 7 is a new beast.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#57

Post by e40 » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:23 PM UTC

georgemcbay wrote: post #28

mixmax wrote: post #23

" You might think Google could deal with this by just not infringing Microsoft’s patents, but that’s not how software patents work. Android has roughly 10 million lines of code. Auditing 10 million lines of code for compliance with 18,000 patents is an impossible task " There's a great startup in that sentence for whoever cracks the algorithmic challenges.

Not really, unless you're looking to sell the software to the patent trolls and not other startups/legitimate businesses. Even if you could do this (it requires machine learning far beyond what is currently available), the answer would always be "this software violates many patents". And once you know that for sure you're liable for triple the damages when your business is successful enough for the patent holders to…

100% correct. You never want to know if you violate a patent, so this idea will only be useful for patent trolls, as you said.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#58

Post by fortes » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:26 PM UTC

hvs wrote: post #52

I was talking to someone who once worked at IBM, and he mentioned that they give a bonus (something like $2000-$5000) for each patent that you receive. He said that employees would get together in small groups and take turns filing patents and sharing the proceeds with the group. IBM, of course, paid for all the fees for filing the patent. Just thought I'd share this random anecdote..

MSFT does something similar as well. Was $500-$1500 while I was there (2002-6)

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#59

Post by fragsworth » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:26 PM UTC

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…

Except the customers who are even aware of these lawsuits probably account for such a small percentage of customers as to be negligible.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#60

Post by billybob » Thu, Jul 07, 2011, 7:42 PM UTC

"The complexity of software and low standards for patent eligibility mean that software engineers produce potentially patentable ideas all the time. [Snip] Auditing 10 million lines of code for compliance with 18,000 patents is an impossible task—especially because the meaning of a patent’s claims are often not clear until after they have been litigated. [Snip] The result is a transfer of wealth from young, growing, innovative companies like Google to mature, bureaucratic companies like Microsoft and IBM—precisely the opposite of the effect the patent system is supposed to have."

Those three sentences together form the best explanation I've seen yet on why software patents are so problematic.