Microsoft sues Motorola over Android patent infringements | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft sues Motorola over Android patent infringements

blogs.technet.com

51 pointsj_b_f61 comments

So much for the "Microsoft doesn't have a history of patent lawsuit trolling. [...] At the end of the day MS is a developer centric company, they pride themselves on the ability to make things, and patents are an annoying side show to that." argument found here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1745932

Patents are a big deal at Microsoft. They are highly encouraged. Employees who succeed in securing a patent receive a plaque that is proudly displayed in their office as well as a nice bonus.

That's true at just about every company, even Google.

The question is are the patents used for offense or defense.

It's actually a cube rather than a plaque. Some people have pyramids on their desk built from patent cubes.

The cube is for filing a patent. You get the plaque when it is awarded.

that has nothing to do with patent trolling though

You've got to have patents before you can patent troll.

Yeah, though what OP seems to be saying is that they're encouraging mid level workers to apply for patents. That seems pretty common and rather benign to me, certainly not indicative of patent trolling.

Wow, a plaque, that is a big deal.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I certainly am.

Microsoft doesn't have a history of patent trolling. Nor are they patent trolling now. Patent trolling is when an entity that neither invented nor practices the patent in suit obtained the rights to the patent and is enforcing it. When the plaintiff is the inventor and/or is practicing the patent, then by definition it is not patent trolling.

What I like about these lawsuits is the possibility that the big players will start aggressively campaigning for patent reform. As long as they all entered into cosy cross-licensing deals with each other, they were running an oligopoly that erected a barrier to entry against upstarts.

But now that they're starting to sue each other, the oligopoly's ranks have split and patents are going to bring everything to a stand-still.

> What I like about these lawsuits is the possibility that the big players will start aggressively campaigning for patent reform.

I wouldn't count on it -- if anything, they'll think, "hmm, we could be next, we'd better start getting patents of our own." Then once they have patents, someone in management will ask, "hey, we have these expensive patents, why don't we deploy them against the competition." That's especially true if some exec wants to get credit (and bonuses) for a license royalty stream or a damages award.

Damn. You ruined my day.

Didn't MS pledge not to use their patents offensively?

EDIT: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge....

Did anyone trust their word?

Seriously, Ballmer must do something for his bonus. Since selling desirable products is not their forte, patent trolling seems a nice business model.

Expect more of this.

Oh, and, BTW, Motorola was selling some WinMo 6 devices, at least here in Brazil.

They'll only sue you if you try to make money of it:

"If You engage in the commercial distribution or importation of software derived from an open source project or if You make or use such software outside the scope of creating such software code, You do not benefit from this promise for such distribution or for these other activities...

Software is deemed to be commercially distributed within the meaning of this promise when the distributor derives revenues in connection with the distribution, such as from subscriptions, updates, or user-based connection fees or from services that are contractually required for a customer to obtain the current version and/or updates of the software product in question."

Oh so the pledge was always worthless. You are right.

Open-source means non-commercial now?

The never said that open source means non-commercial. They said that above and beyond being open source this promise only applies to these situations.

> Software is deemed to be commercially distributed

But doesn't the software come free with the phones?

That's not too accurately summarized. In the linked text they promise to not sue individuals participating noncommercial open source development related to certain covered techologies, which are protocols, languages, file formats and standards. A huge amount of stuff, both technologies and contexts, is left outside the pledge.

Thanks for linking, though; I never bothered to familiarize myself with this before.

Which specific Covered Specifications do you think are involved in this suit?

The pledge you cite (which is legally binding, BTW) is for people implementing specific specifications that Microsoft has listed under specific circumstances.

It is absolutely imperative that we all formulate our opinions in ignorance of the patents themselves. Pay no attention to the following words and numbers.

  Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names: 5,579,517
  Common Name Space for Long and Short File Names: 5,758,352 
  Monitoring Entropic Conditions of a Flash Memory Device as an Indicator for Invoking Erasure Operations: 6,621,746
  Radio Interface Layer in a Cell Phone with a Set of APIs Having a
  Hardware-Independent Proxy Layer and a Hardware-Specific Driver Layer: 6,826,762
  Method and System for Managing Changes to a Contact Database: 6,909,910
  Flexible Architecture for Notifying Applications of State Changes: 7,644,376
  Context Sensitive Menu System/Menu Behavior: 5,664,133
  Method and System for Supporting Off-line Mode of Operation and Synchronization Using Resource State Information: 6,578,054
  Generating Meeting Requests and Group Scheduling from a Mobile Device: 6,370,566

With the exception of 6,826,762 these are pretty laughable.

6,826,762 is pretty laughable too.

But patents are complicated animals - we have to pay attention to the specific claims they make.

I am sure they are equally laughable.

How did you read and understand 9 patents in under an hour? That is a feat that would be quite impressive for a seasoned patent attorney familiar with the technology covered by the patents.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why are they targetting motorola? Don't these patents apply to, well, every smartphone in existence? It can't be a matter of stupidity, so I wonder what made them decide to go after Motorola, and not Nokia, Apple, HTC, Palm, and everyone else who makes a phone with a "Contact Database."

Well you have to read the actual claims. The title means nothing... like literally nothing. It could be that in their patent they require the contact list to also show a nickname, and only Motorola does that.

Who knows, but you should never speculate based on the patent name.

HTC and Apple at least both have some licensing agreements with Microsoft that may cover these patents.

So I took a look at Method and System for Managing Changes to a Contact Database. It's a pretty straightforward patent. The gist of that you can store the call information from a previous call into your contact list. From a given call you can say, "This is a new contact" or "This is an updated contact".

It was filed in 2002.

The key to prior art here is to show prior to 2002 some device that that could either create a new contact or update a contact from the call log.

I almost certainly recall the ability to create new contacts from the call log prior to 2002. I think the tricky part is that I don't I'd seen updating of an existing contact.

To me this seems like an easy patent to get around though. Simply remove the ability to update contacts from the call log.

Wasn't it today I read something here on HN about Microsoft and EFF campaigning against software patents?

Our action today merely seeks to ensure respect for our intellectual property rights infringed by Android devices; and judging by the recent actions by Apple and Oracle, we are not alone in this respect.

Well, it does not make it right.

What I don't understand is why this is strictly against Motorola. What does the Droid line do that others do not to warrant this?

I gather from the other thread that Motorola used to run WinMo. When your customers don't want to buy your shit, sue them so they have to.

Motorola still ships WinMo devices, but the only market that still needs them is industry. In NYC, traffic cops carry them, and I know that several food delivery companies use them. Between this patent suit and the late to the party Windows Phone 7, I hope Microsoft finally dies in the mobile phone space.

They want Motorola to build WinMo 7 phones. They sue because, if they didn't, nobody would bother to build them.

It's Extortion 101. You beat up one store-owner of the street so you don't have to beat up all of them. Nobody wants to be the second to be beaten up. You probably can't beat up all of them and that would serve no purpose.

I am surprised phone manufacturers - since they cross-license tech all the time - don't create a common defense fund for taking down there lawsuits.

Microsoft already got an agreement with HTC, looks like Motorola is next.

Don't think so, if they decided to sue it's because Motorola refused such agreement and because they believe they have a pretty strong case against MS patents.

While I'm sure there have been overtures, these lawsuits are often just juice to try and force the settlement.

And that's why HTC declared it would build a line of WinMo 7 phones.

I doubt they would without this kind of... incentive.

You could sue GOOG (market cap: 167.66B); or, you could sue MOT (19.91B). Which one's a softer target?

Meh, all those billions still buys a gaggle of lawyers.

Yeah, but Google can retaliate with search patents and MS would probably rather not have that fight.

Nothing prevents Google from retaliating right now.

Both sides have an army of lawyers on payroll.

Which makes their move even more despicable. Instead of going to the source they attack a small player. Microsoft was supposed to be rising above this now.

The best part, Motorola has a bunch of patents of their own. This will be interesting to see unfold.

If only they launched a WinMo 7 device...

http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/362876/patent_protec...

Oh, if only these companies would sue them back. Maybe they'll sue Nokia.

That's why they won't dare to sue Google. When they do, it's time to dump all your MSFT stock (if you still hold any) because they have nothing left to lose.

Nice. Sell WinMo7 or get sued :-/

Microsoft way of life.

Ballmer said that the same way they "solved" the netbook problem, they will solve the phone problem. In both cases the solution does not involve technical ability to compete.

Foot, meet gun.

Shameless Microsoft. They don't have the ability to compete in the market. They just want to stop other ones' innovation.

A few years ago people were suing each other after getting patents for stuff that already existed by having "via the internet" tagged on the end.

Now were in the new age, where all those patents that ended "via the internet" now have "on a mobile telephone" instead.

Collecting email on your phone is patented ?

Get Fucked Microsoft, shove it up your arse

You might benefit from rereading this article.

http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-...

my rage is not abated

I guess you are a Motorola shareholder or something? If not, is this likely to harm you in any way?

If not, is this likely to harm you in any way?

If it contributes to Android going away and leaving us to "choose" between Apple and Microsoft controlling our computing experience, then yes.

That is extraordinarily unlikely. I can't think of more than one or two big products that have ever been totally shut down as a result of patent infringement. It simply is not done.

Isn't there a business niche here, for buying self defense patents?

Slogan: "Send $X and the name of the company -- and we'll return a list of patents (and prices to buy them) which that company violate."

Edit: Grammar fix.

Godfather walks into the Grocer's and demands they buy their deli meats from him. Grocer says "No thanks, I'm getting my meat free from those other guys. My customers are happy too."

Godfather says, "Yes, but not buying from me might expose you to harm in the future."

Grocer says, "It's OK, I'm not worried. Besides, who would want to hurt me?"

Godfather comes back the next week and shoots him in the kneecap. "See, I warned you someone might come in and hurt you."

s/Godfather/Microsoft/g

s/Grocer/Motorola/g

s/Deli Meat/Android/g

Wonder how much fight the next, um, Grocery store will put up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com