Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft's Hottest New Profit Center: Android

networkworld.com

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: Microsoft's Hottest New Profit Center: Android

#11
What specifically are the IP issues that Android has? I looked in the article but there was only a passing mention of some claims in a link. A couple of the claims looked like they were about long and short filenames. If that's true then software patents are truly evil and should be abolished yesterday. :/

Re: Microsoft's Hottest New Profit Center: Android

#12

"We are pleased that Wistron is taking advantage of our industrywide licensing program, established to help companies address Android's IP issues," Microsoft general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a press release. That is the most infuriatingly worded press release ever. Might as well just say that you're very pleased Wistron agreed to let you bend them over the counter to address Microsoft's inability to compete…

The smugness just oozes through the page. These kinds of chickenshit tactics are the desperate moves of a stagnant company. The happiest development of my career has been watching the industry emerge from under the shadow of the software mafiosos at Redmond. If the U.S. patent system isn't reformed soon the baton of innovation will pass to other countries that don't enable these extortion schemes.

Re: Microsoft's Hottest New Profit Center: Android

#15
post #2

B-B-But I thought that Microsoft was only acquiring patents to protect itself from evil other companies that would have patented these things and then sued Microsoft! They were supposed to be defensive patents...

No, I'm pretty sure Microsoft has been "evil" for a long time. We're talking 25+ years of non-stop "evil". :-) They destroyed Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, etc. They forced every PC maker to pay for Windows even if they didn't ship Windows on the hardware. They bought the Sybase source and made a cheaper SQL Server product, that essentially killed Sybase. They still have 90% of the desktop OS market, and their "Open Document Format", really isn't that open. Web browser innovation took almost a decade to recover, once they destroyed Netscape, and people still feel the need to support the very non-standard IE6. Recently they bought Nokia, essentially killing more choice in smartphones. Ok, get the idea? Great American capitalists that destroy all competition. :-)

Anyway, even if Microsoft makes money from Android, having Android creates more choice. That's really what consumers need because it reduces costs and spurs innovation.

Re: Microsoft's Hottest New Profit Center: Android

#19
post #15
post #2

B-B-But I thought that Microsoft was only acquiring patents to protect itself from evil other companies that would have patented these things and then sued Microsoft! They were supposed to be defensive patents...

No, I'm pretty sure Microsoft has been "evil" for a long time. We're talking 25+ years of non-stop "evil". :-) They destroyed Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, etc. They forced every PC maker to pay for Windows even if they didn't ship Windows on the hardware. They bought the Sybase source and made a cheaper SQL Server product, that essentially killed Sybase. They still have 90% of the desktop OS market, and the…

> They destroyed Borland, WordPerfect, Lotus, Netscape, etc.

For at least 3 of those, Microsoft destroyed them by making a better product. I wish more companies would be evil like that.

Re: Microsoft's Hottest New Profit Center: Android

#20
post #14

Is there any reason why Microsoft isn't going after Google? I recall reading somewhere that it's because Google isn't actually producing the phone. Can anyone confirm this, or is just cowardice?

There is a difference between direct and indirect patent infringement. Google provides the Android source, but the companies that are being sued are directly infringing by selling and distributing products based on these patents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_infringement_under_Unite...

Google naturally has the choice to indemnify Android distributors and protect them from patent infringement. Google chooses not to do this, presumably because they do not want to expose themselves to the costs of direct patent infringement.

Post reply on HN