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

Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 133 posts

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#51

Post by Atropos »

personjerry wrote: post #40

> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensing fee than to pay a small fortune and take even a remote chance of failure in court. > Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents. So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?

This "cost of litigation" argument is probably bogus. Even some of the epic patent battles like Apple v. Samsung or other decade long arbitrations like Yukos vs. Russia were like 50-60 Million USD in legal fees.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#52

Post by newjersey »

personjerry wrote: post #40

> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensing fee than to pay a small fortune and take even a remote chance of failure in court. > Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents. So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?

I have no inside information but I can imagine a conglomerate like Samsung which has a lot of business to do with Microsoft (including notebook computers and so on) would only pay Microsoft if they received some sort of assurance that they would not be unfairly targeted. Samsung sells everything from notebook computers to solid state drives and everything in between.

To repeat Don Draper in the Mad Men pilot (s01e01)

> The Federal Trade Commission and "Reader's Digest" have done you a favor. They've let you know that any ad that brings up the concept of health and cigarettes together, well, it just makes people think of cancer.

http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Mad-Men-pilot-scri...

My thinking here is if I were in charge of all of Samsung, I wouldn't mind a $15 per device cost of doing business as long as I was reasonably sure that my competitors had to pay the same sum as well. If I were in charge of Samsung, my concern would be that Microsoft would play favorites with competitors like htc.

Please keep in mind that there are no facts here. just my guesses.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#53

Post by Coincoin »

dogma1138 wrote: post #16
josephpmay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)

In Asia small appliances had a magnet on the power cable for ages these aren't fridges but smaller appliances like kettles and hotplates and it was added exactly for the same reason that Apple added it to their laptops the only difference is that Asia has been doing so since the 60's.

Not just in Asia. I threw a couple of old (60s~70s) appliances with magnet power cables a few years ago. The cables were very north american.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#54

Post by lagadu »

seanwilson wrote: post #24
dogma1138 wrote: post #3

I can't seem to understand if MSFT patents actually apply to the Android OS / AOSP or just to various firmware, middleware and software that OEM's use on their devices regardless of the OS in question. The AOSP license and 3rd party notifications do not mention Microsoft and the patents listed in Chinese doc are like vague in the usual patent-esque way. But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets…

> if MSFT gets royalties from these patents it would be irresponsible (to their shareholders, and employees) for them to ditch them Actively enforcing patents like these hurts Microsoft's relationship with developers, hardware manufacturers, the open source community etc.

The group of people that still hates Microsoft by and large will always hate them until they die. Even if they opened up the patents they'd still be hated for "being evil". There's next to nothing to gain from doing and there's billions to lose.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#55

Post by sangnoir »

personjerry wrote: post #40

> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensing fee than to pay a small fortune and take even a remote chance of failure in court. > Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents. So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?

> So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?

Samsung simply stopped paying Microsoft the royalties after the Nokia purchase (Samsung claimed it was a breach of the agreement). Microsoft filed a suite, but after negotiations, the issue was settled[1] under confidential terms. Since then, Samsung now bundles Microsoft's software on its Android devices - feel free to speculate on the direction the payments might be going.

1.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung...

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#56

Post by ygra »

esolyt wrote: post #11
josephpmay wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide an example of slide to unlock before the iPhone? Also, I (personally) feel that maglock for a power cable is very different from maglock for a refrigerator. (A ticket terminal and a vending machine are very different devices covered by different patents even if they both utilize the same basic mechanisms.)

A touchscreen phone named Neonode N1 had slide-to-unlock 2 years before iPhone. http://9to5mac.com/2011/10/25/slide-to-unlock-patented/ But the point is, it is a very trivial way of interacting with a touchscreen. It is, in fact, one of the few ways one can interact with a touchscreen.

Note that all claims need prior art. And the patent also includes a separate part being dragged in an orthogonal direction to open the camera.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#57

Post by biot »

Oletros wrote: post #47
biot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the Neonode has "slide to unlock", but Apple's patent is for a very specific set of claims; items which the Neonode didn't implement. With Apple's patent, they claim novelty over having a single graphical element that the user needs to move with predefined start and end points. Another claim expands upon that saying there is a graphical arrow showing direction of movement. Another claim says there is help text e…

> The Neonode is not prior art for those claims. Well, CAFC thinks that Neonode makes the claims of the Slide to unlock patent obvious: > We reverse the judgment of infringement and no invalidity because the asserted claim of the ’721 patent would have been obvious in light of Neonode and Plaisant. From http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-or... Page 28

From the case:

  > Apple asserted claim 8 of the ’721 patent
This is the one claim Apple asserted. This patent claim states:

  > 8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions
  > to display visual cues to communicate a direction of
  > movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.
That the court found this one claim to be obvious doesn't negate the remaining 14 claims of the patent (excepting, perhaps, claims 9 and 10 that build on claim 8). Of course, it doesn't mean that the remaining claims can't be obvious, perhaps even blindingly so. However, what you can't do is point to this case and say "Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious"; the best you can do is point to this case and say "Claim 8 of Apple's slide to unlock patent is obvious".

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#58

Post by Supraperplex »

personjerry wrote: post #40

> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensing fee than to pay a small fortune and take even a remote chance of failure in court. > Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents. So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?

Give me a billion dollars and I write you a mobile OS. Shoot me an email if you are interested.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#59

Post by dogma1138 »

vetinari wrote: post #46
dogma1138 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why shouldn't MSFT claim patents for FAT? They've developed it and it was adopted by everyone and their mother for being good and cheap FS. You don't need to support FAT to allow transfer of files between your your Windows PC and the phone standards that abstract the file system like MTP and PTP exist for this very own reason. If you are as a phone maker want to enable users to mount their local phone storage as a fu…

The point is, that you cannot use other filesystem, perhaps more suitable to underlying storage technology, like F2FS, because it does not work with Windows. FAT is actually terrible filesystem. It's only advantage is "works with Windows". For SD-cards, it is actually mandatory to use FAT (exFAT for SDXC). It's part of the spec. MTP/PTP is a non-functioning mess.

MTP/PTP works fine for what it is.

Also MSFT didn't force anyone to adopt FAT32 and exFAT for SDHC and SDXC it's not even part of the SD association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Association

If there was a better FS out there that met all the requirements for SD cards don't you think it would've been adopted?

Because the last thing I think all of those guys wanted is to pay MSFT royalty fees, however the alternative could've been even more expensive.

Re: Microsoft won't stop forcing companies to pay for its bogus Android patents

#60

Post by ruffrey »

dep_b wrote: post #48

It's apparently OK to rip off the best ideas while learning from the mistakes of more then 15 years of work done pioneering by Palm, Microsoft and Apple and slapping them on top of a free OS and just paying nothing. It's hard to see the difference between the first iPhones and Galaxy phones, in terms of home screen and hardware. You can't tell them apart at first glance. A clear rip-off. The patents Apple used to sue…

iOS is on top of Palm?
Post reply on HN