Microsoft wants Samsung to pay it $15 for each Android handset
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
Suggests (certainly doesn't prove) that Samsung agrees they're using MS IP, and they're just haggling over price. We have no idea from the article what the patents are for - it could be a hardware patent for all we know. Unlikely, yeah, but unless we know what the patent's for its tough to pass judgement. Tempting and entertaining, but tough.
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-dea...
Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is valid.
I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone else immediately settled.
EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
How many millions of dollars do you think major multinationals tend to hand over on faith without seeing some sort of evidence and paperwork?
MS may create FUD by talking about patent infringements in general terms but the minute you ask someone for money you need to make your case.
If the judge then found out that they'd not revealed the patent details to you before coming to court, he'd almost certainly kick the thing out for being frivolous (you're obliged to try to settle before coming to court and that would include actually telling someone what they'd done wrong).
"...synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power."
Even if using Android costs manufacturers the same as using WP7, why would they use it over Android, when Android is a very proven product in the market, while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now, and dropping.
Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones? I think they are much more likely to get a lot of bad PR over this, because there are a lot of Android users and only a few WP7 users. This bad PR will focus negatively on their future products, like Windows 8. They are creating a negative halo effect around their products.
Yes.
> and they should also cease any plans to launch WP7 phones
Not quite. I guess you're asumming that WP7 phones are only beneficial to MSFT instead of both MSFT & Samsung.
What if, i'm not saying it will happen and i find it unlikely, Google starts hardening the Android rules for new releases? Samsung, as well as other handset manufacturers, need to diversificate.
Samsung has bada, but that's for mid, mid-low handsets. HTC & Motorola have nothing afaik (correct me if i'm wrong).
> They saw they can't make money with their own product
Yup
> while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now, and dropping.
I'm superinterested in smartphone stats, where's that dropping in WP7? it's not "super-growing", but it's not dropping either.
> Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones?
Consumers don't care about this.
Samsung has bada, but that's for mid, mid-low handsets
Personally I think Microsoft is acting stupid.
What will happen if Google wins the Oracle lawsuit? I'll tell you what happens - Android phone makers will grow big balls. And I don't think pissing off Samsung is smart.
"And I don't think pissing off Samsung is smart."
Just see how it worked out for Apple.
Bada is in a different segment of mobile devices - not
sure how you can compare WP7's sales with Bada's.
I'm not sure how you can't compare WP7 sales with Bada, since one of them is clearly preventing sales for the other.
Just see how it worked out for Apple.
Apple sues Samsung for look-and-feel copying. At the same time Samsung does a lot of hardware-related stuff for Apple.
Second, whether you like it or not, but Microsoft has had a lot of "firsts" in smart devices and tablets (whether brewed inside or acquired) and in the world with its existing patent system I can hardly hold their desire to leverage these firsts against Microsoft.
What happens if a judge rules in favor of a Microsoft injunction against selling Samsung-made Android phones? The trial could last years—or decades—and the whole time Samsung couldn't sell it's phones in the US.
If the court didn't issue an injunction, Microsoft would not really be harmed - if Samsung lost the case later it's quite clear what the damages would be and Microsoft have already made it clear that just financial compensation would be acceptable.
If the court did issue an injunction, then Samsung could be irreparably harmed - and if Samsung subsequently win the case then it would be very difficult to make them whole again.
IANAL. I don't see why any sensible court would issue such an injunction.
This info was revealed in the Skyhook trial.
Wondering what counter strategy other than pay up are Samsung and other Android handset vendors pondering.
At this point it just sounds like the OHA will have to do patent pooling and go head to head against leeches to either get a very favorable deal or not have to pay anything at all. Google+TI+Samsung+Sony and the 80 others (ZTE has LTE patents for e.g.) must have enough patents to realize something like this.
It would be terminally bad for Android if instead of paying the ever increasing royalties to MS, vendors just chose to ship WP7 instead. And WP7 is fast getting near more than good enough. The game could change in Microsoft's favor with Nokia at MSFT's disposal sooner than we think.
EDIT : S3 was bought by HTC, and they have a successful claim against Apple. Hmm.
• 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames
• 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames
• 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
• 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
• 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
• 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
• 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
• 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information
• 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
• Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;
• Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
• Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;
• Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and
• Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-sues...
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
I really hate software patents and the trolls that abuse them.
BTW, what is the prior art on the two clearest ones (from the title -- which obviously doesn't mean the claims line up, but I suspect they do):
Meeting requets and group scheduling on a mobile device prior to 1997?
Common namespace for long and short filenames prior to 1993?
What a remarkable sentence. I think my favorite part is "extend rights", but there's a lot to enjoy and it's hard to pick just a few words.
Now, there's no intention of sounding anti-capitalist, what have you, but the mobile market seems like a giant red herring.
If you're going to use your phone anyway, why wouldn't you get "tied" into a contract? Contracts aren't made to screw you over - they're made to retain customers over a certain amount of time. Considering the heavy regular by the FCC in the US and the CCTS in Canada, you can't really even get screwed over.
This is completely aside from the point I'm trying to make, but you're never really tied into a contract if you're smart. Customer service reps at all the major phone companies are so poorly trained, that forcing a mistake is extremely easy. There are also other regulations in place, that makes escaping a contract without a fee, very possible.
That is insane when you compare it to what it actually gets you.
In the US, Verizon's executive office called me with an apology, and fixed up the problems as well. Verizon took about 15 days to respond. Bell took about a month, and Rogers took about 5 months. In the end though, they compensate you as if they would've responded right away.
I'm sure they could, but business is not like an episode of Degrassi Junior High. Samsung wants as many partners as possible. If a carrier wants WP devices, they want to be the one to make them. Android, they want to be there too. While Apple is suing Samsung, I'm sure Samsung would take more Apple orders if possible.
If anything, Samsung may push MS to collect royalties from other vendors, to level the playing field. And this is probably why MS is on a roll. If one company is going to pay royalties, they want to make it easier for MS to collect royalties from the next company. So they're more likely to provide collateral, in various ways, to strengthen Microsoft's claims. MS can use this to then go down the street to LG and say, "Samsung and HTC just openly admitted that this technology infringes. It appears you use it to."
I'm not a fan of the patent trolling, but I must say that I tip my hat to the guy in the MS IP group running this.