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

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-one-thing-microsoft-needs-to-do-to-gain-real-open-source-trust/

by walterbell • 10 years ago

279 129 10 years ago

I suspect it has a lot to do with the legal deadlock "you'll sue me? I'll sue you!" type situation companies like Microsoft, Apple, Google and Oracle have been so reliant upon.

None of these companies have, to my knowledge, ever used these patents against individuals in the open source community but they sure do love to wield them with each other...

cyphar3• 10 years ago

None of these companies have, to my knowledge, ever used these patents against individuals in the open source community but they sure do love to wield them with each other...

There have been many, many cases of patent trolls doing exactly that. The reason this is relevant to these companies is that patent trolls can buy these patents from a company and then make their money's worth by suing every Tom, Dick and Harry they want. Sure, $CompanyX might not actually be the one suing, but they are enabling this sort of abuse of an already broken system.

dogma11386• 10 years ago

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 royalties from these patents it would be irresponsible (to their shareholders, and employees) for them to ditch them, none of these patents claims actually seem to be aimed at Google or the AOSP project so it looks like the core Android OS is not really affected by this.

Google owns countless patents and Apple just might be the biggest patent troll in history and none of them seem to receive even remotely the same amount of scrutiny.

leadingthenet• 10 years ago

Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say that Apple is the biggest patent troll in history? It's the first time I hear such a claim.

dogma11386• 10 years ago

Apple vs Samsung et al. Issuing patents on silly things like slide to unlock and mag lock even tho those functions existed before Apple has ever used them? Heck I'm surprised they haven't sue every kitchen appliance in Asia for violating their maglock patent....

Heck the first apple iPhone GUI related suit against Samsung was field before the first iPhone was even on the market.

mtgx• 10 years ago

Even if that was the case, which I don't think it is, Microsoft shouldn't be asking for stuff like FAT32 royalties.

Think about it. Microsoft is asking for royalties for making devices that work with Windows. How crazy is that? Imagine if Google charged accessory makers for hooking into Android devices. I don't care if others do this sort of thing, too. It's just wrong.

It should be an anti-trust issue, especially when you have a dominating OS like Windows. What are other companies going to do - make mobile devices that don't work with Windows?

yuhong4• 10 years ago

And remember that it was only relatively recently that they asked for it in the first place. And yes indeed I think it also includes Chrome OS too nowadays.

dogma11386• 10 years ago

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 fully writable file system cheaply you just format the SDCard using FAT and pay royalties.

If you don't you can still easily bypass the FAT patent issue by creating your own abstraction layer which may or maynot require the user to use specialized software and drivers (BB manager/itune/kies etc.).

That said for the majority of users MTP and PTP are more than sufficient I have an iPhone now and I do not miss the mount-SD card feature one bit if I'm honest even without using iTunes on a non-jailbroken device.

I can still plugin the phone and transfer files from the camera which is pretty much the only bloodything I could do with it anyhow and for this Apple does not need to support FAR nor pay MSFT a dime.

ourmandave• 10 years ago

How much longer can MS collect on FAT32?

The wiki page says patent terms are 20 years in the U.S. and FAT32 was introduced in August 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_S...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT32

mortehu• 10 years ago

Why do you want more scrutiny for Google's patents? As far as I know, they have never used their patents aggressively, only as a defense. In an environment containing trolls like Apple and Microsoft, I can't blame them.

true_religion• 10 years ago

Google receives as much scrutiny as Microsoft. What they don't receive is criticism, because it's hard to criticize something that is sitting around mostly doing nothing.

dave2000• 10 years ago

"Google owns countless patents and Apple just might be the biggest patent troll in history and none of them seem to receive even remotely the same amount of scrutiny."

Why would you face scrutiny for holding patents?

Kliment• 10 years ago

Patents are like nuclear weapons - they stay dangerous for a very long time, most who have them claim their primary function is to scare others who have them away from attacking them with theirs, but their actual function is to scare and extort anyone who doesn't have them into doing what the patent-holding assholes want. Of course we want to hold anyone who has them under careful scrutiny.

melling• 10 years ago

Apple has a handful of patents that are questionable and they're the biggest patent troll in history? Seems like a bit of an exaggeration considering there's an entire industry built around patent trolling. Here are Microsoft's 300 Android patents. All legit?

http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.doc...

"Automatic Re-Authentication"

"Reducing Power Consumption in a Networked Battery-Operated Device Using Sensors"

"Browser Navigation for Devices With a Limited Input System"

seanwilson• 10 years ago

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.

mwfunk2• 10 years ago

Sadly that means that there is likely one group of people in MS saying, "enforcing these patents gives us a large revenue stream that we don't have to do anything to maintain" (except for paying lawyers, but lawyers probably form part of the core of this group).

On the other side, there is likely another group of people in MS saying "hey guys, if we give up this massive guaranteed cash flow we could receive an impossible-to-predict-or-measure amount of goodwill from ill-defined groups of hypothetical people who might all just hate us anyway no matter what we do, and even if it does make them like us more we're not sure if it will really make a difference in the long run."

Now, I would be squarely in the latter group, because I think it's the right thing to do and is consistent with the kind of company that MS appears to be trying to transform itself into, but I've gotta think that that's a very tough case to argue to anyone who is actually in a position to make that call and is therefore held responsible for the outcome. I would try to make a much more convincing argument than the strawman I presented, but since it's all about intangibles, someone with an opposing viewpoint could probably make just as convincing of a case by framing my intangibles as that strawman, and there's not a whole lot anyone could say to refute it.

It's a local maximum seen throughout the industry- I think there is a growing realization outside of the usual niches (open source advocates, HN readers, etc.) that software patents are doing more harm than good, but in the individual isolated cases it still comes down to people arguing internally that an organization should give up a guaranteed revenue stream in exchange for theoretical goodwill that may or may not actually benefit the company in any tangible way. Lots of people hate stupid patents but patent holders would rather change the system for everyone, than go out on a limb and make a sacrifice like that with no guarantee that their competitors would follow suit. I don't envy anyone trying to fight the good fight in that environment.

lagadu3• 10 years ago

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.

mratzloff• 10 years ago

Why is Microsoft "irresponsible," in your words, if they don't extract maximum value from their patent portfolio, but Apple is a troll? Doesn't Apple likewise have an "obligation" to their shareholders to maximize their value based on your implication?

whybroke• 10 years ago

...if MSFT gets royalties from these patents it would be irresponsible (to their shareholders, and employees) for them to ditch them...

Continuing that logic, it would be irresponsible not to defend this patent's revenue in court. Irresponsible not to use the most advantageous court for that (i.e. East Texas). Irresponsible to campaign in such a way that might invalidate that patent as it would deprive them of a valuable asset. Irresponsible not to reinvest some of the revenue these parent's generate into lobbyists to protect that revenue stream and asset.

So responsibly to investors again results in a tragedy of the commons. This time in patent litigation and legislation

twblalock• 10 years ago

If you want that to change, support changes in patent law. You can't expect any company to act against its own self interest while other companies take full advantage of the system.

In other words, don't hate the player; hate the game.

low_battery2• 10 years ago

Really? Is Google actively shaking up tens of companies with secret patents and threats?

ocdtrekkie• 10 years ago

It's kinda hard to prove because of the confidentiality Google uses in it's agreements with partners, but Samsung was making every indication that they would fork Android, prepping alternatives to all of Google's apps. Then, they reversed course in 2014, they signed a patent agreement with Google and started 'toning down TouchWiz'. These stories were two days apart.

Why would Samsung do this if Google wasn't leveraging it's patent portfolio?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/01/27/samgsung-googl...

http://androidandme.com/2014/01/news/samsung-may-be-toning-d...

PhasmaFelis2• 10 years ago

But in any case i don't really see the issue here, if MSFT gets royalties from these patents it would be irresponsible (to their shareholders, and employees) for them to ditch them

So it's okay to shake people down over bogus patent claims, as long as your shareholders get their take?

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I really hate how people hurry to come up with excuses for corporations and their representatives acting like jerks. They can take responsibility for their actions just like the rest of us.

Google owns countless patents and Apple just might be the biggest patent troll in history and none of them seem to receive even remotely the same amount of scrutiny.

Are you serious? Did you not notice the endless derisive coverage about slide-to-unlock, "rounded corners," etc, etc? Apple deserves and gets plenty of shit for its patent trolling. This article, on the other hand, is the first thing I've personally heard about Microsoft patents in years--I'm sure there's been other coverage, but it's certainly not as comprehensive as Apple's.

curt152• 10 years ago

How did Motorola manage to push back while others caved?

magic_man• 10 years ago

Motorola has a ton of patents the invented the cellphone. Kind of sad how hey pretty much are shadow of what they used to be.

biehl• 10 years ago

Others pushed back too - and were bought off eg. Barnes & Noble and SuSE/Novell.

vetinari3• 10 years ago

Sony is still showing middle finger to Microsoft and doesn't pay a dime.

NegativeK• 10 years ago

And why didn't Google/Motorola fight the very existence of the patents?

wutbrodo• 10 years ago

What are you talking about? Google among others has been pretty active in lobbying for changes to the broken patent system

curt152• 10 years ago

They did. For example http://www.pcworld.com/article/2070280/german-court-invalida...

yuhong4• 10 years ago

http://hal2020.com/2014/03/03/satya-shuffles-his-leadership/...

draw_down• 10 years ago

Darn, with all this talk we hear of a "new Microsoft", it would be nice if they stopped doing this.

JayHost• 10 years ago

There's always another Microsoft hurdle.

Recently Windows 10 showing Tomb Raider advertisements. Windows 7 upgrading to 10 without permission.

This article claims Microsoft is embracing open source in a way that is not just to extend and distinguish.

In my limited knowledge it looks like adaptation. They tried to extinguish; didn't work They tried to extend and extinguish. Now they have to embrace.

Not so fun fact. "Microsoft paid a guy named Ken Brown to write a book saying Linus stole Linux from my MINIX 1 system." - Tanenbaum

It feels a lot like an abusive relationship people don't know how to walk away from.

anon987• 10 years ago

Yep. People come out of the woodwork to praise MS when they do something that involves Linux, but when they are caught (yet again) doing something anti-Linux it get very quiet.

I think this headline sums it up best: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m...

cyphar3• 10 years ago

It needs a culture change, and that won't happen. If Microsoft actually wanted to be a part of the free software community, they would start liberating all of their software, one piece at a time. Most of the things I've seen look like business decisions (top-down) not engineering decisions (bottom-up). I still feel that liberating .NET was done to force Mono out of business. Or to attempt to gain a monopoly with C# developers.

Don't get me wrong, more free software is always a good thing. But I still remember the Microsoft of old and no, I don't accept that they've changed their ways. It's just the next step in their line of business decisions.

awalton• 10 years ago

The reality is there is no new Microsoft. They're just trying to put a shine on a company in decline to keep investors happy. And that's easy to do with good marketing strategies like "Microsoft <3's Linux", while they are still doing the same antics to undermine Linux as they've been doing from the beginning.

Really all that's changed is they got rid of the chair throwing, vitriolic anti-Linux CEO and replaced him with a politician who knows how to work a crowd.

personjerry• 10 years ago

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?

pyre• 10 years ago

Maybe Samsung gets something out of it? Cross-patent licensing deal?

It's also worth noting that MicroSoft started looking for license payments while Samsung was still in court with Apple of patent issues. It's very possible they didn't want another large lawsuit.

zmmmmm2• 10 years ago

I think Microsoft in a number of cases has made the cross licensing so lucrative that companies end up ahead by licensing the patents. They would do this, of course, to establish the precedent that they can then use to go on an leverage against smaller players. It would not surprise me at all if Samsung was in this situtation.

microcolonel• 10 years ago

One reason might be Samsung's Windows laptop business.

Atropos• 10 years ago

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.

staticautomatic• 10 years ago

Try 200+

newjersey• 10 years ago

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.

sangnoir• 10 years ago

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...

Supraperplex• 10 years ago

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

gvb• 10 years ago

Does the billion dollars include indemnification against all patent and copyright lawsuits?

kbutler• 10 years ago

How about third party app development?

Zigurd2• 10 years ago

The best reason for Microsoft to stop leaching off vaguely applicable patents on smartphones is that their best chance at reviving their own smartphone business is with something along the lines of the Nokia X handsets, running Android, but with an emphasis on Microsoft's apps and ecosystem.

That won't fly without access to Google's proprietary apps and app store. Microsoft will need to bury this hatchet before they could get that licensing deal.

They have an SDK for this approach now, with Xamarin. Don't be surprised if they trade the patent revenue for another shot at phones.

scholia3• 10 years ago

That won't fly without access to Google's proprietary apps and app store. Microsoft will need to bury this hatchet before they could get that licensing deal.

Microsoft could use AOSP or Cyanogen. But is there any known case where Google has blocked a would-be Android phone maker? And if it blocked Microsoft, how would that stand up to DoJ scrutiny?

bitmapbrother2• 10 years ago

It doesn't really matter. If you don't have Google services and the Play store your Android based phone is destined to fail.

Zigurd2• 10 years ago

Google cannot block anyone from using AOSP. But Google declines to enter into Google logo agreements all the time for all kinds of reasons that they often do not explain. While you can self test your device for compatibility, that's no guarantee you'll get an agreement with Google.

dep_b2• 10 years ago

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 them were often trivial but the fact it was nothing but an iClone was obvious.

Apparently that's the only thing you can do to a competitor that copies without innovating. I can imagine that now Google had a few firsts in Android (interactive notifications for example) these patents will be swapped more and more and Microsoft gets less leverage. That's why Motorola didn't have to pay, they were extremely important advancing mobile technology and have their own chest of patents as a result.

ruffrey• 10 years ago

iOS is on top of Palm?

dep_b2• 10 years ago

Well they had the Newton as well, don't think they got too much inspiration from Palm for that.

RaleyField3• 10 years ago

rip off the best ideas

The obviousness bar should be raised much higher so that if a lone undergraduate could arrive at a solution it is not a patentable solution. If we are going to entertain software patents then they should be used to cover major investments, like it works in pharmaceutical industry. Most patents are not of this kind, and most things in iPhone are just straightforward progression of prior art.

noir_lord• 10 years ago

Which undergraduate though, I was an undergraduate once, so was Dijkstra, I suspect his idea of obvious would have been divergent from mine.

bitmapbrother2• 10 years ago

You should really have a look at the MCAM report cited in the article. All of these are old prior art ridden patents that would easily be defeated if someone took them to court. Barnes and Noble was one company that told Microsoft to Fuck Off. When the trial date approached they suddenly reached a business arrangement where the two companies formed a joint company.

wstrange• 10 years ago

What is interesting is that corporations have implanted this notion that copying an idea is "stealing" and is somehow immoral.

Copying is how we advance civilization. Every great idea was built on the work of others, or "Standing on the shoulders of Giants" as Newton would say.

The current framework for IP protection isn't working. There is no evidence that it is accelerating the pace of innovation.

We need to shift our viewpoint and realize that copying is a good thing.

mastazi• 10 years ago

Slightly OT: "I'm writing this on Linux Mint" must be the equivalent, in the personal computing world, of having a long beard and wearing hipster clothing. So many are using it but they all think they are oh-so-not-mainstream. Oh, and just like those skinny jeans, they are probably going to hate it sooner or later.

EDIT: I was referring to Linux Mint, not Linux in general. I would never call a Slackware user a hipster ;-)

CamatHN• 10 years ago

As long as litigation is of a positive net present value (i.e. expected return is positive) then they have a duty to their shareholders to undertake it. It's just the way of the world, its not like the CEO is taking into account this when thinking of 'the way microsoft should be' its just the state of tech innovation at the moment.

rayiner2• 10 years ago

That's not actually a thing. Corporate law gives officers great discretion in how to run the business.

enraged_camel• 10 years ago

>As long as litigation is of a positive net present value (i.e. expected return is positive) then they have a duty to their shareholders to undertake it.

This is a myth that has been debunked many, many times.

victorhooi• 10 years ago

I'm not disputing whether this is true or not - but do you have any sources, or articles on this?

PhasmaFelis2• 10 years ago

So, they're not illegitimately strongarming people because they want to, only because someone is paying them to do it?

Is that supposed to make it better?

I really hate how people hurry to come up with excuses for corporations and their representatives acting like jerks. They can take responsibility for their actions just like the rest of us.

elcct• 10 years ago

Microsoft is Internet Explorer 6 of Open Source

cwyers• 10 years ago

I am pretty sure the title of this submission is against the site guidelines; it's not the title of the article submitted and the article's title is perfectly explanatory.

acqq3• 10 years ago

yes, mods (e.g. dang) please check and fix the title.

andrewflnr• 10 years ago

The submitted title may not be much better, but the original is pure clickbait. It starts off with "The one thing...", and makes you click through to find out.

acqq3• 10 years ago

The current (written by the poster) HN title of this article claims that the MSFT patents are "bogus" which is surely not true.

Samsung has enough money to challenge them, but they know they would fail, the patents are valid, as long as the US law supports the software patents in the current form.

zmmmmm2• 10 years ago

People often misattribute this patent attack as on Android. What they don't realise is that most of patents involved are simply Linux or general computing patents. In other words, whether you love or hate Android or Google, is irrelevant. This is an exact example of a generic attack on a computing system through use of sketchy, over broad, under substantiated patents. MS happened to deploy it against Android because Android was the competitor of the day, but they can and will deploy it as suits their business interests against any technology or company out there.

ZeroGravitas• 10 years ago

And they already have, back in 2009, suing TomTom for using Linux in their GPS navigation devices:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_In....

acqq3• 10 years ago

You know why MSFT enforces its patents? Because the patents are valid. The US approved and likes such patents.

Software patents in the form the US does them didn't exist in Europe, but see this (hint: the US again):

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...

bad_user• 10 years ago

Oh, but I thought Microsoft changed.

kazuyan2• 10 years ago

"So why, with all this, are many open-source fans and developers certain that Microsoft can't be trusted?"

Source?

annnnd• 10 years ago

Let's vote: +1.

MS doesn't stand a chance when it comes to me (and I imagine others) trusting them. Too much BS for too many years.

kazuyan2• 10 years ago

If I were the writer of this article I would rewrite as follow.

"So why, with all this, am I certain that Microsoft can't be trusted?"

If I want to say "So why, with all this, are many open-source fans and developers certain that Microsoft can't be trusted?", then I would want source to back me up. This is how I want to earn "Trust" :)

cLeEOGPw• 10 years ago

I am always saying windows is better OS for desktop users than linux, and I would never trust MS. Why would open source people trust MS is beyond imagination.

elcapitan• 10 years ago

I wonder if this kind of behavior is not creating an obstacle for their move towards opening their own software and convincing people to use it outside of the Windows environment. I'm sure all these nice new things have OS licenses that protect their users, but who knows in which direction this will develop. People have become pretty sceptic of the Oracle owned line of technology as well recently.

abiox2• 10 years ago

New MSFT, same as the old MSFT.

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

Related Stories