Another Android Device Maker Signs Patent Agreement With Microsoft 203
doperative writes with this quote from El Reg:
"Microsoft has nailed a second Android device maker to a patent licensing agreement. The Redmond software giant announced on Monday that General Dynamics Itronix has signed a patent agreement that will provide 'broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio.' In other words, General Dynamics Itronix has agreed to licensing certain, unnamed Microsoft patents for use with Android-powered portables."
Microsoft made a deal with GDI? (Score:5, Funny)
Huh? (Score:2)
Are you accusing google of being evil in this matter? If so, why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Contract implies permission required (Score:5, Informative)
I've added them to the list:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax [swpat.org]
The costs being passed on is bad enough, but it's also worrying to note that these deals include an implied admission by the signees that they need MS's permission for the distribution of their products.
That means MS can cancel their business at any time, and it implies that no one else can develop for that platform without MS's permission.
Re:Contract implies permission required (Score:5, Insightful)
Does any other sector suffer as many patent lawsuits with supposed patent infringement as the software industry? I mean, I don't hear much about various
manufacturer suing each other over mechanical design patents, for example.
Dosn't the fact that there are so many cases like this indicate that the whole idea of software patents is very very broken? It's all but impossible to do a meaningful search for a patent that will help you solve a software problem, that could save you development time. Instead it is much more the ambush model - you go about your business developing something, oblivious to some obscurely written overly broad software patent that your software is supposedly infringing - then get ambushed by the patent holder.
The patent has done absolutely nothing to shorten your development time or lower your costs to bring the product to market. Quite the opposite infact - if you want to write software that does not infringe on any other patent out there, the amount of research for existing software patents that your code might infringe on, would probably take more time than it does to actually write your software, even though you are writing it with no knowledge of the patents in question .
We live in a democracy, and us developers are pretty much totally against software patents, as far as I can see. So why can't we fix this?
Re: (Score:2)
Does any other sector suffer as many patent lawsuits with supposed patent infringement as the software industry?
A few of them: pharmaceutical, medical devices, electronics, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, grasshopper, when you can define what is broke (and for whom it is broken), only then will you know the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Dosn't the fact that there are so many cases like this indicate that the whole idea of software patents is very very broken?
Not necessarily; it can also mean any of the following:
1. Most mechanical ideas have been all patented a long time ago, and those patents have expired.
2. Patent office is better at spotting prior art or obviousness in mechanical patents compared to software patents.
3. The requirement to pay patent fees for mechanical devices is not considered onerous, and most companies just fork over the cash without going to court.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So why can't we fix this?
Corruption and lobbyism.
In Europe "we" the developers and citizens have been protesting against software patents for a long time. Again and again the issue has been delayed at best. Lobby organisations won't stop until they get their precious extortion patents. We as citizens cannot keep up with 24/7 paid and well-funded professionals that constantly influence politicians with illegitimate and often illegal means.
Software patents are merely a symptom of a broken democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
In Europe you are so special. We are so cool that we will forget about our nations like Greece which is crumbling into nothing because they spent more then they make.
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic there is impecable, so you must question your premisses...
See. Modern age Feudalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
baron may have a right to that bridge someone else has built, or, it may not even have the right to it, but it may be claiming it. the deal is, as long as you have less standing and resources than baron in the socio-economic ladder, you cant do anything about it, but pay. Only another baron equal or greater than his socioeconomic status can challenge him.
ultimate end of capitalism, is feudalism. even if you have brief political freedom until it happens, it eventually happens - just like how it happened from roman republic to roman empire. mechanics are the same, end result is the same, just the names are different.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't it be a troll under the bridge? That would be so much more cool.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't it be a troll under the bridge? That would be so much more cool.
Because the troll under the bridge is the government revenue department / tax collector. The Baron is more forthcoming, the rules are simpler, even though they are just as arbitrary/made up to suit the Baron's needs; the real difference between trolls and Barons is who they want to pay, and what they do to you if you don't pay.
Barons bring non-payers before the court and collect their pay in a "civilized way"; the taxes are cha
Re: (Score:2)
There is, but he's posting on Slashdot and not paying attention to the bridge at all.
Re:See. Modern age Feudalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
ultimate end of capitalism, is feudalism. even if you have brief political freedom until it happens, it eventually happens
You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes? Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes? Given that they are government-granted protections, you could argue that they're antithetical to capitalism.
You could argue that, but you would sound pretty stupid. For starters, how does having a government and laws make you anti-capitalist? You can't even have a stable monetary system without government-granted protection of the currency.
A corporation is a legal structure that codifies ownership of property. The corporation owns assets and conducts business; individual shareholders own portions of the total value of that entity. That is what you'd describe as anti-capitalist behavior?
Similarly, patents grant ow
Re: (Score:2)
You can't even have a stable monetary system without government-granted protection of the currency.
You don't need a monetary system to have capitalism. Trade can be done through barter and hard currencies. The government (or a widely trusted party) can make trade more efficient.
A problem with hard currencies, is the possibility of fraud, for example fake specie. Forged government notes are easier to detect, since a trusted entity installed effective anti-counterfeiting measures.
You also don't need
Re: (Score:2)
You also don't need any government protecting "ownership" to have capitalism. There is a natural concept of ownership, even in the absence of governments -- when you build something, or perform work of the hand to create something, grow something, that thing is yours; when you have built and worked on a piece of land first, that is naturally yours.
What you describe is personal property, which is a more narrow concept. Personal property is literally that which you directly possess - the shirt on your back, the land on which you stand, the house in which you live, the car which you drive. Private property is much broader - you can own something, e.g. a factory, without ever setting foot in it or even seeing it. Yet, by virtue of the society recognizing your property right to said factory, you can control it - meaning that you can restrict other people
Re: (Score:2)
patents are not ownership. That is just a euphemism. Patents are government mandated monopolies. Closer to fascism than capitalism.
The fact that you would even comment on socialism means you clearly don't understand the parents argument.
Re: (Score:2)
patents are not ownership. That is just a euphemism. Patents are government mandated monopolies. Closer to fascism than capitalism.
So what do you call land ownership? Who says that someone else can't just come and sleep in your backyard? The government. You didn't make the land and you didn't discover it. It was here millions of years before you were ever born and it will probably be here millions of years after. So how can you "own" it?
In fact, you can't effectively own anything without laws that say it's yours.
The fact that you would even comment on socialism means you clearly don't understand the parents argument.
The fact that you would talk about "fascism" and "feudalism" means you clearly have never read a history book. Go talk to som
Re: (Score:2)
All "property" is government mandated and protected, why should patents be singled out?
Natural laws of ownership aren't going to help you when I come and take your car, is it? Whats the thing stopping me from taking your car? Government backed laws and the police force and courts to enforce those laws.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitely not stupid. In capitalism, government has only one role, to protect property. Property includes your body (as in anyone else doing harm to your body). Therefore, government making laws is definitely is anti-capitalist if those laws have nothing to do with property protection. By this definition, most laws in the US are anti-capitalist. If you don't agree with this then you should hit the books and review exactly what is capitalism.
I think you should hit the books and review the definition of "capitalism", because none that I am aware about even mention government in the first place, much less restrict what it can or can't do for the society to be considered capitalist.
Capitalism, as follows from the name, is an economic system in which the means of production (lands, factories etc) - aka things that are necessary to make money by working - aka "capital", hence the name - are privately owned.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:See. Modern age Feudalism. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realise that patents and corporations have nothing to do with capitalism, yes?
They have some things to do with the US implementation of capitalism. They increase the cost of certain resources that could otherwise be less expensive.
They do have an effect of increasing the profitability of certain businesses.
Also, "capitalists" lobby for these laws. Now it's also true that by nature, capitalism allows companies that arise in the system to lobby for laws that are actually anti-capitalist, for selfish reasons.
Just because capitalism allowed a company to exist, does not necessarily mean it's in their best interest for the system to be pure capitalist; companies that form in a capitalist system will (by nature) try to get laws/regs that benefit them, which by nature, include laws that protect their hegemony and make it harder for a successful competitor to arise and take business.
Re: (Score:2)
That's Free Market Capitalism, which is not the only (or even the more common) version of capitalism.
Capitalism, by itself, simply means that the means of production are privately owned and run for profit. It does not specify other roles of the government.
Re: (Score:2)
I said that you "could make an argument", not that it was an essential part of the definition.
As for the argument: capitalism arose in a period where the means of production was owned by the state. Capitalism espoused ownership by the individual - it was a movement away from strong government control, and towards private control. That is why limited liability corporations and patent protection can be seen as anti-capitalistic: they represent the very thing capitalism was trying to get away from.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is nothing more than finding a way to gain from a situation. The fact that it is seen as synonymous with free market is a shame. Even the most die hard socialist is going to capitalize on the system. It is the evil part of greed, the part that is willing to blackmail another person to gain advantage. To pass regulation to gain advantage. To position other groups against each other to gain advantage. All while not actually producing anything of value to trade in a free market that has open a
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism has nothing to do with finding a way to gain from a situation. That might be called ingenuity, or entrepreneurial spirit, but it's not capitalism. Rather than repeat myself, I'll just provide a link to my response to a similar comment [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And if you did argue so you would be wrong.
You do realize that capitalism is government granted, don't you? Ownership rights are a legal fiction granted to the people by the power of their government, and enforced by it.
Without ownership rights, capitalism simply doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Ownership existed long before government did; it was called a club, and a belligerent attitude. Nowadays we just swap the club for a lawyer.
If you want to argue that point, then all rights are a legal fiction, as absent a government, there is nobody to enforce any of them. That's because the concept of a "right" isn't a political one; they're a moral concept. If we say someone has a "right", then what we mean is that it's immoral to restrict them from exercising their right. The concept of "mine" and "yours
Re: (Score:2)
No they are antithetical to free market capitalism.
You could argue that they are a return to mercantilism.
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue that they are a return to mercantilism.
Which is what Adam Smith was writing against when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Capitalism emerged from, and in reaction against, mercantilism. I'd say a return to mercantalism is contrary to capitalism almost by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalism is a system of prosperity through greed.
Nice definition pulled out of your ass. Here's an actual definition: "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitalism)
Note that the meaning of "corporate" here isn't in reference to limited liability corporations, but the original meaning of
I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting (Score:5, Interesting)
At some point these "unnamed patents" that are allegedly being infringed need to see the light of day.
On the face of it, this situation is too similar to the SCO lawsuits for comfort - talk of unnamed, unspecified patents against which Android is infringing, and a lot of lawyers to inflict the death of 1000 cuts if the company dares trying to fight. I suspect the similarity in tactics is not a coincidence.
Interesting that, AFAIK, they aren't going after Google - but then Microsoft knows Google has lots of lawyers as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is likely Microsoft is more frightened of Google's patent portfolio. That's the only way to thrive in the software world, you must arm yourself with thousands and thousands of vague, broad and obvious patents and then waylay all the smaller, more vigorous and innovative companies that are trying to compete with you. If you can use the courts and your patent portfolio to stifle them you can continue to make money without having to adapt to new markets.
Re:I'm glad Motorola, at least, is fighting (Score:5, Informative)
At some point these "unnamed patents" that are allegedly being infringed need to see the light of day.
It took a surprising amount of searching to find it, as most of the stories did not list the patents, but I found a couple of sites ([1] [ismashphone.com], [2] [patentlyapple.com]) that have them. Here's the list from [2]:
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you! I hope someone mods you up for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder why nearly nobody is fighting. I know one can't judge a patent by its title, but there is no chance I'm reading such beasts...
"Common name space for long and short filenames."
Looks like those patents on DOS naming convention MS is suing every flash user with. The problem here is that Android doesn't use the DOS naming convention.
"Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations."
The hardware doesn't already do that? Can MS sue the flash manufacturers with that patent, and them go and sue the companies that use those same flash chips? Can it sue the end consumers too?
"Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer."
That is the funniest of all
Honest question (Score:3)
Re:Honest question (Score:4, Informative)
Since RIM and HP both have mobile patent portfolios of their own, I imagine there is some variety of cross-licensing at work (and possibly cash transfers, one way or the other). I think RIM and Microsoft are suing each other as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Er, all RIM smartphones to date have been running Java for their userland (or at least for third-party apps).
Are you confusing MS with Oracle here, by chance? Oracle is the one suing Google over Dalvik, and the patents they brought up cover precisely the things that you've mentioned - VMs and JIT. In fact, rumor it is that Microsoft paid to Sun (and now pays to Oracle) considerable money for those same patents so as not to infringe with .NET.
The lawsuit business model (Score:2)
To quote some Microsoft supporters... (Score:3, Interesting)
Those who cannot compete, litigate.
Microsoft has proven to be unable to compete in the marketspace of mobile devices. So Microsoft now threatens expensive lawsuits in their attempt to remain meaningful.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft has proven to be unable to compete in the marketspace of mobile devices.
What? Shoe-horning a huge, complicated, monolithic, & proprietary OS into the blossoming, new, mobile space didn't work? Imagine that.
Help me out here (Score:3)
There are some people (particularly on Neowin.net) who say there's nothing wrong with Microsoft pursuing these agreements to obtain money from each Android phone sold, because of the argument that if you create something and I want to use it, obviously you'd want to be paid for all that research and development costs.
What's the best way to debunk what at first sounds like a completely logical statement? I know it sounds rather like an xkcd comic (particularly http://xkcd.com/386 [xkcd.com]), but still.
Re:Help me out here (Score:4, Interesting)
There really isn't one. Microsoft spent money researching, created something, and patented it. Now, they are doing what they ethically must: using previous investments (R&D, patents) to maximize value for their shareholders.
I haven't seen these patents, obviously. (I don't think we even know which they are.) I imagine some of them are broad, cover-everything patents. But some are probably fairly specific, given that Microsoft actually creates products in the same category and isn't (exclusively) a patent troll.
The flaw is that the patents are allowed to exist; the "wrong" is that conditions that allow this to happen exist, not that it's happening. The system needs reform.
Re: (Score:3)
"There really isn't one. Microsoft spent money researching, created something, and patented it. "
Then other people researched AND implemented it. And started selling it. Independently from Microsoft.
Now, why should MS get even a penny from them?
Re: (Score:2)
Because we (society; not you *OR* I) have decided that the first person to an idea has the right to patent it.
For no other reason.
If we (society) don't like it (as neither you nor I do), we need to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we do need to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. Got any ideas to actually make it change? I don't. Politicians in Canada have misrepresented Canadians repeatedly on issues such as these, and voting that set out and a new set in has done precisely nothing. US politicians have done the same. (I assume you're in the US.)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I have problems equating patent extortion to human trafficking. The fact is that what MS is doing is legal. Human/gun/drug trafficking is not. Software is protected by copyright. That should be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I have problems equating patent extortion to human trafficking. The fact is that what MS is doing is legal. Human/gun/drug trafficking is not. Software is protected by copyright. That should be enough.
What IF human trafficking (and slavery in general) were legal, would you be fine with that then?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I even mentioned that I have problems with the whole idea in what you replied to. But as much as I dislike most Microsoft products, blaming the company for the way the system works is just silly.
Re: (Score:3)
Because if I'm not using any of their work, why should I pay for it?
If whatever patents MS is claiming are being infringed were valid, everyone would know exactly which ones because MS would be shouting from the rooftops the cool things they came up with that nobody had ever thought of before and all the developers would be saying "This was clearly the right thing to do once Microsoft made it obvious. We never would have thought of it ourselves, but how can we make our product without it now."
The patents i
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how much software MS writes and how long they have been writing it, it is entirely possible that whatever they patiented have already made it into engineering canon.
Re: (Score:2)
"research" sounds like wise people locked in a room where money is pumped and cool new revolutionary ideas are produced, but in reality it's just people realizing they did something just a *very sightly little bit different* than wh
Re: (Score:2)
The system was desinged in a time that thermodynamics was the only advanced science, and just a bunch of people worked at hight tech (all on the same kind of tech). It was not designed to cope with any aspect of advanced sciences or our current R&D methodology. Software is not the exception, mechanic engeneering (where patens somewhat work) is.
Public Record (Score:5, Interesting)
Patent licensing deals should be a matter of public record. Do whatever the hell you want with your trade secrets, but if you're using a government instrument (patents) then We the People, the owners of the government, need to see how you're using them, so we can understand if adjustments need to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent ownership isn't even necessarily a matter of public record. You *can* file with the USPTO to put a patent assignment on the record, and most corporations obtaining patent rights from their employees (who are the named inventors in the US - pretty much all foreign countries allow the corporations to apply for the patent directly) do so. But after that (and especially with patent trolls), it can be a lot of guesswork to figure out which shell company owns the patent, right up until someone files suit
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes, let's have no government intervention.
Patents ARE government intervention. Therefore, let's have no patents.
Sounds like a great deal for me.
Re: (Score:2)
By all means, eliminate patents. But to have government intervention with no feedback control mechanism, that's just asking for ... well, look at the patent system today.
odd; what devices does GDI make that are android? (Score:2)
That Is How IP Works! (Score:2)
(IANAL) I am not sure why everyone seems to be upset when one company sues each other over Intellectual Property (IP) rights or when company signs an IP agreement with another company. This is how an IP economy works. The only way for companies to agree on price for IP is to have the court determine the price, settle out of court, or sign an agreement to obtain IP. Microsoft claims that some of its technologies used in Android infringe on their patents and they will negotiate a price or take a company to co
Why is this not barratry? (Score:2)
There is a story on groklaw about RightHaven being sued for barratry. I think that's a good thing. But, why just RightHaven and not Microsoft?
* Barratry, in criminal and civil law, is the act or practice of bringing repeated legal actions solely to harass. This action is a crime in some jurisdictions.
* Barratry also refers to the act of soliciting legal business from potential clients based on a particular event (whether or not the intent is to harass). Pejoratively, this is called ambulance chasing.
* Barratry also referred to persistently inciting others to engage in litigation or other disputes or quarrels outside of the courts. This was a crime in England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barratry
Velocity Micro Also bends over for Microsoft (Score:2)
http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2011/06/29/microsoft-and-velocity-micro-inc-sign-patent-agreement-covering-android-based-devices/
REDMOND, Wash., June 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Microsoft Corp. and Velocity Micro, Inc., have signed a patent agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for Velocity Micro, Inc., Android-based devices, including Velocity Micro, Inc.’s Cruz Tablet. Although the contents of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from Velocity Micro, Inc., under the agreement. (Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20000822/MSFTLOGO) “We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Velocity Micro, Inc., to address and secure IP rights for its Android-based Cruz tablet devices,” said Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of Intellectual Property and Licensing at Microsoft. Randy Copeland, CEO of Velocity Micro, Inc., said, “By entering into this agreement with Microsoft, Velocity Micro, Inc., will be able to better meet the needs of our customers with the introduction of exciting new Cruz tablets having increased performance and functionality.” Microsoft’s Commitment to Licensing Intellectual Property The patent agreement is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, the company has entered into more than 700 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was developed to open access to Microsoft’s significant R&D investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I am sure the developers are lining up for Android.
beats getting sued for an update button on ios.
500,000 New Android Devices A Day (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Man, I hope your MBA is still eligible for a refund.
Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day (Score:5, Insightful)
It's humiliating in the sense that their floundering mobile platform isn't being seriously considered - by consumers for one, but by handset makers either.
It's desperation because Microsoft totally reinvented themselves in the mobile space, replaced one crappy platform with another, and still is flatlined in this marketplace, unable to make money, watching the PC platform slip away - so they have to resort to running a protection racket.
In my opinion that is in fact both humiliating and desperate - but I can't get a refund on my MBA as I'm not finished paying for it yet...
Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy. I can't even remotely justify it as either humiliating or desperate; it's well-played despite being immensely back-handed.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem here is that Microsoft effectively made Android anything but free, which is exactly the opposite of what Google wanted to achieve with the OEM brand perception of Android as a platform, and that in and of itself is a fantastic business strategy.
It's also a flagrant GPL violation for a device manufacturer to use Android code obtained under the GPL and acquire 'patent licensing' from a third party for redistribution of GPL-covered product.
Re: (Score:3)
That said, the whole "law supersedes contract" bit is generally known to apply directly to laws as opposed to contracts signed to avoid being sued over laws, but the simple fact that HTC has yet to be sued by any creator of GPL'd code or by Microsoft means the tactic is working. Google can't risk losing its foothold, and they'd rather have Android stick around with an OEM ra
Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day (Score:5, Interesting)
Law may supersede contract, but GPL is based on laws as well; copyright laws.
If a patent supersedes the GPL contract, than the GPL contract becomes invalid in it's entirety and copyright law ensures you can't use it at all.
Re:500,000 New Android Devices A Day (Score:5, Interesting)
It's brilliant. They make money simply by threatening people with litigation. Pure, unadulterated genius. It doesn't matter if their shitty windows 7 phones flop, they make money if android succeeds! Man, that is innovation.
Re: (Score:2)
They should just completely embrace this business model and buy up Trollhaven, I mean Righthaven
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft already makes more from Android than from Windows Phone 7. [asymco.com]
Re: (Score:3)
They legally fulfilled the requirements for protecting their own patents: they implemented them in production systems
That is not a legal requirement for enforcing patents. Microsoft themselves have lost patent lawsuits where the plaintiff did not produce any products at all, let alone implementing their patents.
Re: (Score:2)
It's humiliating that the laws allow this kind of shit.
The desperation bit ( I assume ) comes from the fact that a company whose business plan is ( allegedly ) making money by selling software is now making some money from litigations, but not from selling stuff.
Like the knight with no arms telling King Arthur "I'll bite you to death!" in the Knights of the Round Table.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be justified if their patents were valid, but they probably are not. However, as long as they keep the licensing costs below what a legal fight would likely cost a company, companies will license.
Microsoft doesn't need more money (they have plenty of that), they need market
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
so nokia isn't a major handset manufacturer?
The reason why Nokia is bending over for Microsoft is because Stephen Elop, the trojan horse from Redmond, is doing what he's supposed to do.
No return to Meego, even if the N9 is a success
http://nokiagadgets.com/?p=1897
You haven't heard? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's "humiliating desperation" to legally force someone to pay you to do absolutely nothing?
Yes. Us proud folk expect to earn what we get. We don't even like to be around folk who want to get and get giving nothing because there's no profit for us in it and their breath is sour.
Re: (Score:2)
It is humiliating because it is a dead end, most of the patents are really old, in fact so old the protection is for 'broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio.'
Meanwhile M$ products die on the vine and of course given a few years companies will simply stop paying. So double crunch for M$ not software sales and no patent sales, and of course the triple fail Ballmer complete screw of MSN 'er' Live 'er' Bing 'er', what ever other way he further manages to destroy MSN and leave what should be worth
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"so why not make some of that money back? "
Because I do not want to pay for it. You think the shareholders are going to let them pay for it and not us? Yeah right .
So I invested a lot of money in student loans and want to make some money back now. Therefore you owe me money right? ... frankly it is not your problem and likewise what Microsoft did to buy these patents is not my problem either.
Maybe service wouldn't cost $95 a month for one phone with a $400 price tag if these stupid trolls GO AWAY.
If you act
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I use you, and the knowledge you acquired while studying by hiring you? Then yes.
For sitting on your ass eating cheetos? Then no.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm.. regardless of Microsoft, Apple is considered a quite aggressive litigious company.
Um.... You can't ignore Microsoft when the thing I'm replying to is a comparison between Apple and Microsoft.
I never said that Apple doesn't file lawsuits. I was responding specifically to the comparison hairyfeet made between MS and Apple regarding lawsuits.
everybody develops for android now (Score:3)
wtf? Haven't you been reading /.? Developers have decided, far and wide, that getting money for their efforts is wrong, and would rather contribute to the android malware space. That damned Apple Tax is pushing them in droves to the Android *(licensed by MicroSoft) ecosystem, where they can make nothing, but feel really really good about it.
There is no other platform than android.
There have been no other platforms before me.
[the other 8 you've probably seen].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about me? (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't pay MS anything, HTC did. And HTC paid Nokia, the US government (depending on the quality of their accountants), Chinese manufacturers, chip suppliers, Google (huh, I suppose it's ok to pay Google for the rights to use their properties, but not MS?), their employees, etc.