MS going after ChromeOS on patents too | Hacker News Reader

MS going after ChromeOS on patents too

itworld.com

56 pointsjfruh37 comments

Microsoft seems to be getting more and more barefaced about this as time goes on.

Only the other day patent 'analyst' Florian Mueller disclosed funding from Microsoft to write a report on FRAND licensing. He then subsequently admitted that he and Microsoft "...have worked together more than once, but that because of a confidentiality agreement with the company, he can’t elaborate on the details of that relationship..." [1].

Microsoft never really changed their spots, they just switched tactics.

[1] http://paidcontent.org/article/419-is-patent-expertblogger-f...

I have to agree with you on this. I have been a Microsoft supporter on most of their enterprises, but the tactics have to change.This is the kind of things that mess up the technology industry.

Why? Companies go right on selling Android and Chrome products when it makes sense for them to do so, but pay Microsoft royalties in order to license their IP. It was reported recently that half of all Android devices now generate a royalty to Microsoft, yet this doesn't seem to have harmed the popularity and overall market success of Android in the slightest.

As tactics go, this seems much less destructive to the technology industry than Apple's attempts to get products they believe use their IP banned outright.

Am I missing something?

If other companies with these two-bit patents managed to extort as large amounts of money from the phone manufacturers, it'd become impossible to make Android phones at competitive prices. There isn't much difference between that and outright banning.

Are you sure they are really all two-bit patents? Microsoft has been making mobile devices since the era of "handheld PCs" back in the mid 90s, and smartphones -- starting with Pocket PC Phone Edition -- since 2002. It would be surprising if they didn't have a strong IP portfolio in the area.

P.S. (not directed at you, jsnell) Is there really anything that warrants downvoting my original post other than an unpopular viewpoint?

> P.S. (not directed at you, jsnell) Is there really anything that warrants downvoting my original post other than an unpopular viewpoint?

That is exactly why I don't look at the karma points. :D

It is destructive either way. And Apple is a whole different story and I won't get into it.

I think mostly my opinion is that Software Patents are destructive to the industry. It limits innovation. The tactics that Microsoft is using to compete in the Smartphone market, are smart, but evil nonetheless.

Now like you said, this won't affect Android's growth. But this is because is a a battle of giants. The problem is that these kind of tactics set the precedent for Microsoft or other company to do it again and even worse, to become the standard.

These kind of tactics used against start-ups for example, is effectively killing them. Patents right now are being used mostly to destroy competition not to embrace it.

The tactics that Microsoft is employing, while legal, are not good for innovation, and are not good for the industry. Of course I am assuming that innovation is the fuel of the industry, but I might be wrong.

And you have heavily slanted analysis from Groklaw but even raising the question of who the person who actually runs/ran that site is "an attack on Freedom(as defined by RMS) and the person who asked it must be condemned and tainted as the enemy on all forums as being on the payroll of M$".

Forget about even raising the question of if there's similar funding involved from any company, even if just for costs of funding. Even hazmat suits won't save you from the erupting flames and moderation for just doubting the one that commenters are on the side of.

Apple is the innovator

Microsoft is the extortionist

Google is the thief

What's the saddest thing, is that companies actually accept to pay without testing Microsoft's theory in Court. And the more they accept, the worse is becomes for others, too. Microsoft is even being sneaky about it. I'm pretty sure Samsung wasn't at a loss financially when they accepted the deal. But it was still a big win for Microsoft, because they could then go around and tell others "Look, even Samsung paid!".

Sorry, but Microsoft is pathetic. License actual products and services like ActiveSync. Stop licensing BS patents that are useless to those companies once they pay up. What's wrong with the patent system is that companies have to pay to not get sued, not to license the technology. And why would they, when there are such BS patents.

If Microsoft has such awesome "technology" and patents, then why aren't they disclosing them so others don't have to "infringe" on them later? Yeah, because they know the patents are BS and they wouldn't stand to scrutiny even for a day.

Why is it that the independent creation of one company (ChromeOS), somewhat based on ideas expressed in the mid to late 90s by Netscape (the web and browser should replace the desktop) and earlier by Sun (the network is the computer), can be found to infringe the patents of a copycat company (Microsoft, who integrated IE into the desktop while/after killing Netscape)? Or in other words, how is it ethically acceptable for one company or individual to claim ownership of the independent creation of another?

OT: The constantly-updating stream of new user signups in the "IT World Live" section on the right of the page was incredibly distracting. I had to resize my browser window to hide it in order to read the article.

I think we would need to know more about the patent in question before we can determine whether it was first invented by netscape or microsoft.

I agree. That's another problem with the current system -- secret settlemnts that affect us all, but only the parties can read, preventing Linux devs or Google from working around the problem.

However, even if the "invention" in question originated at Microsoft, it may have been obvious given work done by Netscape, Sun, academia, etc.

Before you start bashing, consider that Microsoft might actually hold at least 1 legitimate patent that is being clearly infringed on.

The "cocky", "full of vim and vinegar", "victory-lap", "bellicose", "braggado and preening", "celebrating" legal team blog post that this author is refering to:

http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...

...seems to be everything but that, and very professional.

Considering how little vetting happens at the Patent Office, I wouldn't be surprised. But the real problem, in my opinion, is that Google is not doing anything about Microsoft's efforts.

They gave HTC some patents that HTC used to launch a countersuit against Apple. I think they were recently struck down though.

Only one of them. They have 1-2 more they plan on using.

Well guess a number on how much they've been paid.

Think of one patent that the collective brainpower of Google and everyone who has been threatened with a lawsuit couldn't work around for less than that figure.

If such a patent exists then it's a failure of the patent system and Microsoft is exploiting that failure. If not, then the fact they can do it with a bunch of dubious patents is a failure of the patent system and Microsoft is exploiting that failure.

All this is based on the assumption that they have actually extracted money from these companies, rather than say take token amounts from them which are then returned to them as co-advertising funds for Windows devices so that they can proclaim doom'n'gloom for their competitors.

I mean the patents and the payments are both secret aren't they? Yet every press release is very clear on the point that payments are being recieved by Microsoft (and are silent on what, if anything, is going the other way).

> Before you start bashing, consider that Microsoft might actually hold at least 1 legitimate patent that is being clearly infringed on.

Isn't a big part of the problem that they "might" have such a patent, but we can't know?

In other words, if you enter a market Microsoft cares about, you may find Microsoft lawyers at your door with demands. But you can't tell before you make a huge investment and enter that market. You can write all your own code from scratch, make a terrific product, and you still don't know if Microsoft can sue you or not.

How does this benefit innovation?

My understanding is that you have a non-trivial software project, you can count on infringing many patents; it's best to assume that Microsoft (among many other wealthy companies with large patent portfolios) can indeed sue you and win. Your best bet is to be one of these big patent holders with lots of money, and then you can be protected by mutually assured destruction.

Its hard to think this is a balanced article when the title is: "Microsoft: Why innovate when you can litigate?"

Because to be in the position they are in to be able to litigate involves having innovated first. The modern MS is well known for its R&D and innovation.

And lastly does anyone expect anything different from MS? they have a solid history of using the courts as a way of dealing with competitors.

The article says that ChromeOS is based on Ubuntu but I am pretty certain that it is based on Gentoo (or at least uses Gentoo tools to build). Does anyone know for sure?

Chrome OS is currently based on Gentoo. Ubuntu was used originally, but as I remember the switch happened early on due to Gentoo's better support for cross-compilation.

Can we just stop using FAT already?

Why is there both ChromeOS and Android? I never understood that.

Because they do different things.

Windows 8 will run on different devices, so your statement is not correct. I rate it 6/10.

Why is there Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7? Or for that matter OS X and IOS.

IOS is an operating system for Cisco Routers.

iOS was actually branched off of OS X. OS X was around before Apple was making small devices.

Two different approaches to operating systems. ChromeOS is about storing everything in the cloud, where as Android is localised.

Well, there's the big company with lots of warring fiefdoms theory.

On the other hand, if you assume that Google has a single cohorent strategy then you could imagine that they consider the future to be web apps but felt that the low-power phones weren't quite ready to compete against native iOS apps with only the HTML4 web. So as things on the hardware side progress, Android will become more like Chrome and via HTML5,6,7 the web will become more like native development and the two will meet in the middle.

Why is a legitimate question being downvoted? it might not directly relate to the post but it has a small intersection.

Because a lot of people confuse off-topic with i-don't-agree.

Lack of topicality is not the only good reason to downvote a question, even if you don't believe in downvoting things you disagree with. For example, "M$ SUX" is clearly on-topic and even echoes sentiments found in many other comments here, but it is unproductive and essentially just trolling. Worthless comments are probably a bigger danger than off-topic ones. (Not commenting on the grandparent — just arguing against what I see as a common misconception.)

>"One example: the post, chock full of information on Microsoft's latest patent score, included a chart that also detailed Apple's and Oracle's separate lawsuits against Google's Android, which seems to all but confirm Google's assertions all of this Android litigation is all part of a coordinated effort."

One could argue that it speaks more to Google's well entrenched attitude toward IP.

Suspicion regarding Android is somewhat justified given Google's history of using other people's content to sell advertising (e.g. displaying copyrighted material without license as part of image search) or their opt-out approach to copyright protection of books as they scan them and place them online.

Given that there is little evidence of a clean room reverse engineering approach by Google when it comes to Android, it is unsurprising that big players suspect patent infringement - and each of the claims is at least plausible.

Your statement "Given that there is little evidence of a clean room reverse engineering approach by Google when it comes to Android, it is unsurprising that big players suspect patent infringement..." is a non sequitur.

Clean room reverse engineering is a technique to avoid copyright and trade secret infringements. Patents cannot be avoided by clean room reverse engineering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

>somewhat justified given Google's history of using other people's content to sell advertising (e.g. displaying copyrighted material without license as part of image search) or their opt-out approach to copyright protection of books

How are either of those related to patent/IP law?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com