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

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#81

Post by windsurfer »

wnight wrote: post #78
windsurfer wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adobe has the same thing for 1000 to 5000 per patent (though not available to students such as myself). Some people would file 2 or 3 patents a year, usually just pertaining to the particular way they solved a problem that month.

> not available to students Wow. I wonder if they understand the impact of that business decision? Were you unpaid? Or something, that changed your legal status in a relevant way?

No I was paid, it just was explicitly not offered to students or contract workers. I assume it might have to do with intellectual property assignment.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#83

Post by lukesandberg »

fortes wrote: post #58
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)

GE gave me 500 for getting an application approved for filing and another 500 when/if it gets approved. Also a sweet trophy for every year that i filed something.

Getting things approved to be filed was fairly trivial. In fact we would occasionally (about 2 times per year) have meetings in my team where we would spend an entire morning just brainstorming. Then we would take the 'best' ideas and write them up (this included a minimal amount prior art research and about 4 pages of prose and diagrams if you wanted). We would discuss the ideas with patent attorneys who would advise us on whether an idea was worth pursuing. It was a very well supported process.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#84

Post by rbanffy »

kelnos wrote: post #43
BananaRepublic wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and like their other MS Research projects it's licenced under the 'Microsoft Research Licence' which means that whatever modifications/enhancements you do to the code can only be used within this academic setting. HOWEVER, Microsoft themselves can use your modifications for whatever purposes they want, like sell them. Sweet deal...

As with any other software license (including the GPL), if you don't like the terms, don't use it.

Isn't it a bit misleading to put the MRL and the GPL in the same league? I agree with the "If you don't like the license, don't use the software" attitude, but the terms of the MRL are quite restrictive.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#85

Post by patentnerd »

kenjackson wrote: post #64
billybob wrote: post #60

"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,…

low standards for patent eligibility I'm not sure if the standards are low, rather that the examiners don't abide by the rules set out by the USPTO. Novel and non-obvious are both requirements. because the meaning of a patent’s claims are often not clear until after they have been litigated This is another failing of current examiners. The patent should be written such that one skilled in the art could reproduce it.…

To be clear, patent "eligibility" usually refers to the requirements of 35 USC 101, i.e. any new and useful method or machine. Novelty and obviousness come later, hence OP's term "potentially patentable." The point is that pretty much any software process gets you past the initial hurdle.

And obviousness isn't as easy to show as you imply. Everything has to be based on prior art, which isn't always readily available.

Clarity is subjective, and even claims that seem clear can get twisted around once litigation starts. Attorneys are masters at this.

I'm just pointing out that it's not as easy as simply getting better examiners, although that would certainly help.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#86

Post by contravert »

BananaRepublic wrote: post #46
Dn_Ab wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ehh, given how much Kinect relies on the functionality offered by PrimeSense, I'd think it would rather be UNBALANCED to claim it to come from MS Research.

The Kinect only relies on Prime Sense in the form of their hardware. All the algorithms and software are entirely developed by MS Research. This point is made more clear by the fact that Microsoft didn't acquire exclusive rights from Prime Sense but is instead banking on the superiority of their algorithms.

I've played around with the Kinect, and without Microsoft's code, all you really get from the hardware is a depth image (think an RGB image with distance from camera for each pixel instead of intensity). Everything else is developed by Microsoft, and it is not an easy feat.

Prime Sense developed their own software for pose detection and tracking, but it is inferior to the XBox360 implementation.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#87

Post by joelhaus »

btilly wrote: post #39
SwellJoe wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't this practice violate the 1994 consent decree with the FTC? The linked article states that MS could only charge computer manufacturers if MS software was installed. I guess the decree must have expired, because it seems that the Android OS situation directly applies.

BTW, fascinating article, thx! At the time, all of the MS anti-trust stuff seemed so distant, but given the current tech landscape, it seems to have taken on much greater importance.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#88

Post by yuhong »

barista wrote: post #50
crizCraig wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What about Apple? They have used saimilar tactic. How about Oracle? IBM? Cisco? Lost respect for those too? Pretty much every company follows similar tactic to protect its interest. The fact Google does not use it is not because they "do no evil" but that they don't have any patents to ask money for.

They do have patents, they just don't use them the same way.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#89

Post by trurl »

hvs wrote: post #54
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.

Hah, quite the optimist. In most commonly used languages deciding the equivalence of two code fragments is undecidable.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#90

Post by SwellJoe »

joelhaus wrote: post #87
btilly wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't this practice violate the 1994 consent decree with the FTC? The linked article states that MS could only charge computer manufacturers if MS software was installed. I guess the decree must have expired, because it seems that the Android OS situation directly applies. BTW, fascinating article, thx! At the time, all of the MS anti-trust stuff seemed so distant, but given the current tech landscape, it seems to…

It certainly does seem to tell us something about the deep-seated character (or lack thereof) within the company.
Post reply on HN