Microsoft’s Android Shakedown • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#91

Post by btilly » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 4:26 AM UTC

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…

The decree was that they couldn't charge by the machine, regardless of whether MS software was installed. I believe that Microsoft's response was to charge by the CPU instead, which technically wasn't covered in the decree, but had almost the same effect.

In this case they aren't charging by the CPU, they are charging by the operating system that ships with Microsoft's "intellectual property". If they got away with the per-CPU crapola 15 years ago, nobody will blink an eye at the current arrangement.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#92

Post by CamperBob » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 5:02 AM UTC

zmmmmm wrote: post #77

barista wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. At this point though, with thousands of phd level engineers and probably tens of thousands of the smartest people on the planet working for them, you have to conclude that the reason they have no patents is not that they are unable to produce patents, but rather a conscious choice that they don't…

It was probably a reasonable risk/return calculation on their part. What are the odds that they will be on the losing end of more than $3.14 billion in patent suits? How much interest can $3.14 billion earn between now and the time these hypothetical damages will have to be paid?

The calculation might have gone differently if it hadn't been for the fairly recent SCOTUS decision that made it more difficult for a plaintiff to obtain a permanent injunction against distribution of an allegedly-infringing product ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/supreme_court_v.html ). If it hadn't been for that decision, the Nortel patents might have been worth $3 billion and then some.

Re: Microsoft’s Android Shakedown

#93

Post by gbhn » Fri, Jul 08, 2011, 5:16 AM UTC

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.…

Is the "teaching" requirement for a patent really weak in court? It seems to me most patents are obfuscated works of legalese and ought to be invalidated on that basis, by a relatively clear reading of the law.

Or is it too easy to pay some expert witness $1000 to come in and say "yeah, that's totally clear to me and I'm an expert, so nyah nyah nyah."