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

Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#61

Post by ngoel36 »

iamshs wrote: post #50
corresation wrote: post #44

...claims analyst, with absolutely nothing backing up their claim. The headline appears as if Microsoft accountants stated this as a fact, when in reality this is someone essentially reading tea leaves. Further it's worth noting that the division that these Android royalties are attributed to also garners all other patent licensing royalties of any sort (e.g. FAT), as well as licensing charges such as ActiveSync lice…

Exactly. Rick Sherlund has a history of saying that Microsoft should be divided up, and Xbox should definitely be spun off [1, 2, 3]. He even said Samsung should take over Xbox division [4]. Even if MS earns $1 Billion from patents that exclude "legitimate" licensing, I think that would be a big number and definitely should be looked into. [1] - http://www.geekwire.com/2013/sherlund-microsoft-should-consi... [2] - ht…

Microsoft's divisions (most notably Xbox) have always had a huge dilemma: Do we act in a way that's best for our division, or do we maximize value for MSFT. From my time at Xbox, I can say with certainty that the implied actions for each choice are often not the same.

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#63

Post by oh_sigh »

AshleysBrain wrote: post #62

With software, is it out of the question to re-engineer the code so it no longer needs licensing? Why hasn't Android already done that?

Probably because some patents are so broadly written that they cover every conceivable implementation.

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#64

Post by w4 »

AshleysBrain wrote: post #62

With software, is it out of the question to re-engineer the code so it no longer needs licensing? Why hasn't Android already done that?

The problem is, frequently, the patents aren't on something you can engineer around; they're on a very broad idea and not on any specific implementation, e.g. pull to refresh. If you want to implement an interface that pulls down to refresh then you're technically infringing on Twitter's patent on it (though they have chosen not to enforce it). My understanding is there's no good way to engineer around it if you want the interface to pull and refresh.

Granted, you can get around that one with a button that refreshes, but what if the patents is, say, on "operating system provided tabs"? Or on "plotting search results on a map"? Or on "communicating multi-part messages"? Now you have a problem, and you're going to have to pay licensing fees since you need those things just to create your mobile OS.

The other problem has less to do with the patents themselves and more to do with the legal system surrounding them: it's incredibly expensive and quite risky to litigate software patent disputes. You're dealing with a court system that doesn't necessarily fully understand technical matters, leaving the outcome of litigating ambiguous even in the best of cases (and keep in mind that a loss could potentially end your entire product, since the courts could order that you must pay an extremely onerous licensing fee or cease infringing, either of which probably means closing up shop), and the cost of litigation is enormous. It's usually wiser just to settle for an acceptable licensing agreement than it is to try to engineer around the problem and fight the ensuing lawsuit by asserting that your solution is not subject to the patent.

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#65

Post by tzs »

shmerl wrote: post #55
tzs wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a bit confused. When Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble, the patents they were suing over were disclosed in their public court filings. Over a dozen were identified [1]. [1] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-andro...

So they did disclose them? No doubt under pressure from B&N. If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial. Such things should never be patentable in the first place. Surely invalidating them can be not so easy, but it can be possible. It's one of the reasons why MS attempts to push NDAs as much as possible (we are lucky this was disclosed in those cases). Probably only a minority of their…

> If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial.

They may or may not be trivial, but I've only known the patent numbers for an hour, and you only knew them for 15 minutes when you posted--and it is not possible to have read them in sufficient detail to make such a judgement in that time.

To find out what a patent actually covers you have to read more than just the title and the abstract. The title and abstract are mostly useful for determining what a patent does not cover rather than determining what it covers.

The title just tells you the broad area the patent is in, and the abstract narrows that down a bit, but both will cover a lot of ground. That's why they are most useful for exclusion, not inclusion.

To find out what the patent actually covers, it is the claims that matter. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, so you must read that to understand the claims.

For instance, a patent might have a title of "Acoustic Repelling of Mosquitoes", which seems really broad, but when you read the specification and claims, it might turn out that the patent only applies when the mosquitoes are a specific species, exactly three sound generators are being used, they are arranged in an equilateral triangle, the temperature is above 95F, and it is daylight.

(Actually, to really tell what is covered, you need to check the file for the patent from the patent office. The examiner and the applicant often go back and forth arguing over whether a claim should be allowed. The arguments and concessions the applicant makes to convince the examiner to allow the claim become limits on the claim).

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#66

Post by leeoniya »

rbanffy wrote: post #58
leeoniya wrote: post #17

does anyone know which patents they're asserting? FAT?

Barnes and Noble tried to make the list public. They got, IIRC, a billion dollars and a "partnership" (mostly the money) in exchange for shutting up. AFAIK, the list is still secret.

now this is completely and utterly fucked up

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#67

Post by marcosdumay »

zmmmmm wrote: post #15

Hopefully - and I really hope this - most of these patents are stupid stuff from the early days of graphical operating systems and are ready to expire in the next few years (given a 20 year lifespan for most patents).

> given a 20 year lifespan for most patents

From what I've read, in the US a patent is valid until 20 years after it is granted, retroactive to the date that it's filled. That can be a 40 years interval, or more, if the USPTO don't do it's job well (and I know of patents that did go over 30 years).

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#68

Post by marcosdumay »

oceanstone wrote: post #28
mtgx wrote: post #10

How can a company so shamelessly extract money (through forceful deals, no doubt) from an open source OS, and get away with it? Linux companies dodged this bullet for the most part, from both Microsoft and SCU, but it seems Microsoft "succeeded" this time against Android with their mostly garbage patents in the same way patent trolls and mass-bittorrent lawsuits have succeeded so far - by scaring people/companies int…

My guess is that the device manufacturers see some legitimacy to Microsoft's claims, or at least fear a judge would. Perhaps if all the manufacturers banded together, well mainly Samsung, they could fight it. But if that would have been profitable, I'd assume it would have happened by now.

More realistic, device manufacturers understand that seeing a judge long enough to know his opinion (whatever it is) is more expensive than paying the protection racket.

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#69

Post by sirkneeland »

naner wrote: post #30
tsycho wrote: post #5

If these numbers are accurate, then yuck!!! My disgust for software patents just went up even further. More seriously, I have a question for those who know more about this... 1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict? 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does…

It isn't clear that Google is one of the companies who pays them. If Microsoft went after Google it seems like Google would have made a stink about it. Microsoft generally goes after companies they expect to be compliant (such as Amazon, who was already paying a patent fee for using Linux on their servers). It seemed like in the past their method was to say they have patents covering X (in the past X was Linux) and y…

didn't they sign a patent deal in 1997? Not sure if it's still valid or not...

Re: Microsoft Earns $2 Billion Per Year From Android Patent Royalties?

#70

Post by stonemetal »

tsycho wrote: post #5

If these numbers are accurate, then yuck!!! My disgust for software patents just went up even further. More seriously, I have a question for those who know more about this... 1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict? 2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does…

Apple and MS have had a cross licensing agreement since the 90s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...

Post reply on HN