Hacker News Reader

> I know this sounds absurd to a lot of people, but it makes sense on some levels. Take the names out of the mix and it's a bit easier to detach your emotions

> * PhoneCorp invents a new interface that is unique, useful, and makes phones very easy to use

> * BizPhones thinks this technology is good and would also like to incorporate it in to their product

> * BizPhones negotiates a licensing agreement so they can use the technology, making it possible for more consumers to enjoy the benefits, and fairly compensating PhoneCorp

That description is clearly in favor of one side of the argument here.

Here is an alternative description:

> * PhoneCorp files a patent for a fairly general and obvious concept.

> * BizPhones makes a phone, without reading PhoneCorp's patent. The phone sells like hotcakes.

> * PhoneCorp threatens to sue BizPhones for 'infringing' its patent, if BizPhones doesn't pay a 'license fee'.

People don't write hundred million dollar checks for a single obvious invalid patent. There's like 20 companies signed up. There's a reason they all sign up and it's probably pretty compelling evidence that MS has multiple unlikely to be overturned or easily worked around patents being infringed.

You forgot to mention that most of them are also Microsoft's Partners and has other business interests with MSFT.

There are definitely reasons for them signing up. Among them:

1. The risk of being sued. Even if the patents are bogus, they will still lose a lot of money from defending themselves.

2. Microsoft sweetens the deal with other business interests of theirs. For example, a discount on Windows licenses.

To further clarify. Imagine, for the sake of a nice example, that MS owned the patent to pinch-to-zoom.

Google incorporate pinch-to-zoom in android but don't actually sell any product featuring pinch-to-zoom so aren't actually infringing on the patent.

Some other company produces an android device and thus creates a product that uses pinch-to-zoom and thus infringes on MS' patent.

>They're licensing their own intellectual property, which happens to be used in Google's products.

The only one claiming that is Microsoft. Until the issue has been decided in court, we can't know that Google has infringed on any of Microsoft's intellectual property. According to the article, none of the claims have yet been contested in court. Therefore, we don't know for sure that Microsoft's technology is being infringed upon by Google.

The flip side of this is that Microsoft's claims must be so compelling that no one wants to even test them in court.

Either that or no one that Microsoft has shaken down has the financial wherewithal to challenge Microsoft's claims.

It's also worth noting that there's a long history of IP fights in the mobile especially over 2G/3G technologies yet we still have an assortment of fantastic modern SmartPhones to choose from. What Microsoft is doing is really nothing new and the handset makers were pretty quick to strike deals probably because it's nothing new to them. When Samsung makes a television they are paying a variety of companies license fees on various parts/technologies for example. Why would SmartPhones be any different?

So this wouldn't be considered "patent trolling"? I know Microsoft has had quite a history with Android and I always assumed it was just them using their patents to make some quick money.

Great answer, by the way. Definitely cleared up a lot of questions I had.

The term "patent trolling" is generally reserved for companies who have no intention of bringing a product to market. Keep in mind that Microsoft has a competing product in the market, and spends millions of dollars on R&D.

Patents are a way of protecting a legitimate R&D effort. Imagine the disincentive with regard to R&D if a company had no protection from a competitor simply taking their idea once they came to market.

The key is to protect patents from abuse, while still providing a means to protect legitimate effort in innovation for a reasonable period of time.

Imagine the disincentive with regard to R&D if a company had no protection from a competitor simply taking their idea once they came to market.

Yes, allowing any random developer to create a spreadsheet or first person shooter or social networking app would obviously bring innovation to a crashing halt.

Wow three straw men in one sentence. Well played I guess.

Great points.

Google knows they are infringing MS's patents, that's why they are shopping for their own war chest rather than going for a trial.

Yes, in the same sense that I "know" that every nontrivial piece of software I've written likely infringes on many patents that should never have been granted.