Hacker News Reader

Time and time again I’ve read people lauding “The New Microsoft,” the company that created XBox and Mango, the company that no longer behaves like the old, nasty monopolist of old. Such plaudits remind me of someone who is dating a wonderful man who has been divorced four times, but this time it’s going to be different.

Interesting that the tone here when it's Apple suing over flimsy multitouch, pinch-to-zoom and design patents that look like a rectangle(and demanding that they stop production, not even ask for a licensing fee) is they're protecting their innovation, but when it's Microsoft it's all about a evil monopolist.

Reminds me of the argument that Apple's winning because they derive the most profit out of the phone business inspite of Android's marketshare, but Apache's winning in the web server business inspite of Microsoft making the most money out of it.

Actually, a lot of us (or at least, me) are opposed to Apple's lawsuits as well. The fanboy crowd (of any group) tends to make a lot more noise than the majority.

Well, Apple, to be fair, seems to be doing it's attack in the public. Microsoft on the other hand it trying to backstab Android.

But I currently hate both companies for the bullshit they are pulling. What happened to building better stuff and winning? Seems Microsoft gave up on that a long long time ago (did they ever make the best of something? all I can think of is the first couple Word and Excel releases)

Don't obfuscate reality to lend credence to an all-too-familiar anti-Apple rant.

Microsoft is utilizing ridiculously old, unrelated patents to force Android manufacturers to pay up.

Apple is using designed in house, relevant and modern patents against what it feels is intellectual property theft.

What's the difference?

Apple is suing companies for what it feels is unfair use of the technology that Apple feels it made.

Microsoft is simply forcing companies to pay huge fees for using software that Microsoft never made and has no claim to.

I would have posted the same thing, so thanks!

To add to that: I do feel Apple's lawsuits are a problem. But if we're going to make any meaningful progress, we must start with software patents.

Microsoft's dealings with Android manufacturers offer a golden opportunity to set the precedent that could invalidate software patents in general.

That's too big an opportunity to miss.

Apple's patent suits are (unfortunately?) relevant and modern patents... it's harder to get a foothold against what Apple is doing. Or, in other words, since my viewpoint is not the only viewpoint, I don't see as clear a case that we should invalidate Apple's suits. They have some merit.

> Apple is using designed in house, relevant and modern patents against what it feels is intellectual property theft.

You must be kidding, right?

Patent #6,493,002: Method and Apparatus for Displaying and Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System

That patent is being used against Samsung, doesn't seem really modern since it is from 1997

>Apple is suing companies for what it feels is unfair use of the technology that Apple feels it made.

>Microsoft is simply forcing companies to pay huge fees for using software that Microsoft never made and has no claim to.

Lets interchange those.

Microsoft is suing companies for what it feels is unfair use of the technology that Microsoft feels it made.

Apple is simply forcing companies to pay huge fees for using software that Apple never made and has no claim to.

Still feels right, doesn't it?

My stance on the Apple patent mess has been that they're making legal use of bad patent laws. Hate the laws that allow those patents, not the patent-holders.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is going above and beyond just exercising patent rights that shouldn't exist. Asking someone to sign an NDA before you will tell them which of your patents they're infringing is so despicable that this should be an automatic win for B&N due to the doctrine of unclean hands.

I was one of them. In fact I thought the Apple had surpassed MS in its assertion of essentially useless patents. Guess I was wrong.

On some level this is good. Once software development becomes dominated my lawyers the markets will find ways to shift away from the US market. So this problem will eventually solve itself: Either the patent system is fixed, or innovation is going to happen somewhere else soon.

For anyone who has followed MCSFT over the years, this kind of behavior comes as no surprise. What does surprise me though is how many people (usually younger) think MCSFT can do no wrong, as evidenced by Gate's significant philanthropy. I don't think this event will do much to sway those people from having that opinion, but it does seem to be a teachable moment.

One might think that HTC, Samsung et al have little direct interest in defending the free use of Android - as the Android OS lowers the barriers to entry for other new (start-up?) manufacturers. It might be that they see the Microsoft tax as being well spent.

The fact that most of these companies are also Microsoft Windows licensees in their PC business might also play a role here.

Where is Google in all of this? Why isn't Google defending "the free use of Android"?

Do what, exactly? Google has already stated multiple times that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. Microsoft hasn't brought any claims against Google, just people who implement the phones.

Google could probably sue Microsoft for slander, but again, Microsoft hasn't been going around telling the world that Android is infringing on it's patents. They, Microsoft, just go to the manufacturing companies, and even then they are making sure that manufacturing companies sign NDAs to keep the information from going out into the public.

And Google can't sue them to say, 'Tell me what you got.' Because that is fishing, and a form of intimidation, I think. I don't know the right legal term for it, but I do know you can't do it. So Google's hands seem to have been tied up until this point. Now that there are some information in the public, maybe they'll do something now.

Google is partially involved via the Motorola merger agreement (which forbids settling Motorola's patent disputes with Apple and Microsoft, IIRC) and will fully involved once the merger closes, of course.

A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of the negative. In other words, just because you can't see Google working to defend Android, doesn't mean they aren't orchestrating a defense behind the scenes.

Plus they did just give some patents to HTC.

Don't forget that the FAT patents are necessary for interoperability with Windows. I think B&N should have mentioned that instead of claiming they are not infringing. Mention in particular how Windows, the dominant desktop OS, support only patented filesystems (FAT, exFAT, NTFS).

Windows supports UDF.

According to Wikipedia, Windows XP and previous versions can only read, not write to UDF filesystems.

One of the reasons for MS being able to extract such amounts (same as their whole OS lic costs) from HW manufactures like HTC & Samsung is the continuing almost monopoly of MS Windows as a desktop OS in business environments. And – as said - MS Windows only supports MS patented file systems directly (fat, fat32, NTFS). So as a HW manufacturer if you take the simple route you use one of those fs on your devices. That's how this story is told reg FAT patents.

Samsung, HTC e.a. how about writing a Windows driver & Front-end app (e.g. similar to the Nokia or Blackberry desktop apps) that can read a non MS patented file system from your devices – would that not be much cheaper or is their more to this story?

<IANAL>

The argument that Microsoft's patents should be voided due to prior art does not make their assertion of those patents illegitimate (illegitimacy of the entire patent process is also irrelevant). The voiding of patents due to prior art or obviousness is a central purpose of the patent courts, and Barnes and Nobel's claims are no less plausible on cursory examination than Microsoft's.

</IANAL>

HTC and Samsung settled with Microsoft because they are financially sound enough to pick their battles and are focused on selling phones rather than ideological battles regarding the merits of Android and Google's approach versus that of Microsoft. I strongly suspect that manufacturers value Android to the degree it contributes to their bottom line and that partnering with Microsoft to license patents is seen as the most beneficial strategy...for both parties.

It's just busines - HTC and Samsung cannot "get Android on the phone" while Microsoft has operators standing by.

The way you phrase it, it sounds like B&N is suing MS for ideological reasons, but they are profit-maximizing capitalists just like everyone else in this game.

The difference, IMHO, is that B&N has very little history as a consumer electronics company (and therefore has no defensive patents to bring to the table), but sees cheap ebook readers as its only hope to be a viable company in the long run (and therefore does not want MS license fees to be a perpetual drag on their profits).

If B&N became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony or Dell, they would settle this lawsuit in a week.

The parent comment appeared to be assuming an consumer ideologies were relevant to the actions of various companies with interests in Android licensing or litigation.

I agree that B&N is struggling for its existence and I believe that their actions are more consistent with desperation than with an intelligible long term strategy for growth in a changing market.

The drag on profits argument is pretty weak in my opinion since the real money from Nook sales should come from ongoing content sales rather than the sale of the initial hardware, i.e. profits are more dependent on the viability of the Nook ecosystem than on the cost of manufacturing the device.

It might be argued that essentially, B&N is choosing to litigate Google's approach to IP while Google clearly has attempted to disassociate itself from the IP issues which surround Android. And furthermore, that B&N is choosing to enter a litigation arena, patents, in which it has very little institutional expertise.

As for HTC, I think they are hedging their bets. They license WP7 as well, and don't want to bet their entire company on Android.

Haha yeah because WP7 will do really well...

I suspect the extortion fee Microsoft imposed on them was discounted because of their support for WP7.

"But what I don't understand how could HTC, Samsung and all the others agree to this so easily?"

Right here is where Occam's Razor makes short work of B&N's claims that all MS has is junk patents.

Samsung is going to write MS a $100 million dollar check next year for these patents. Samsung signed the NDA and saw all those patents and has a huge legal department and still decided to pay up.

What do you mean by "support such a company"?

I buy their products and enjoy their technology even while i abhor some of their business practices. I'm sure plenty of people hate Apple's and Google's business practices too, but still use their stuff.

What can you do? All of this is nothing compared to the actions of the corporation known as the US Government who whores out her super powers for evil the world over. Yet, I still pay my taxes and live here because I'm being practical.

At some point you realize that the whole corporatocracy is against you having any kind of freedom and there's quite literally nothing you can do about it. So, you might as well enjoy your life. Maybe that's the wrong conclusion but at the least I know that Microsoft is just playing in a game and that they didn't invent the game.

It's true that the impact of a single individual is very small, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. I guess it's similar to the whole Nike fiasco where many people stopped buying their products due to their factories employing underpaid children. It's a matter of principle.

Personally, I avoid Microsoft products whenever I can simply before I don't need to use them anymore. There's plenty of great alternatives that are better in many respects.

I hear what you're saying. Personally, I would have to change my entire life to do so. Microsoft basically puts food on my table. I enjoy building enterprise and desktop software, developer tools, etc. I don't enjoy building web software or mobile apps. Windows is the best fit for my skills.

If I am going to change my life that much, I would rather change careers and become a travelling monk, a yoga instructor, a physical therapist or a vegan food truck vendor. Actually, my plan would be to finish a yoga instructor's course while going to school for a physical therapy license and mastering my cooking at home. THEN, I would roam the country cooking for and healing people. I'm still thinking about it though.

At the time they were approached by MS they still had some contracts with MS for MS-devices...so I imagine MS stated license or loose our business..and remember fighting a trivial patent is not easy as far as costs are concerned or the recovery of said costs in a court award..

IN HTC and Samsung cases I think MS device business is somewhat 15th of their total business??

>They've probably done a lot of this behind the scenes with Linux and other browsers before.

Other browsers? Like what? Opera? Doubt we wouldn't hear of it.

> HTC has grown 3x every year for the past 2 years because of Android,

Sure... but just remember that HTC came out from being an ODM for HP and Dell to make Windows Mobile devices and then made a lot of Windows Mobile devices for a long time, which gave them a ton of valuable knowledge about how to make smartphones.

Google is the one that needs to indemnify their OS and make companies like Apple and Microsoft think twice about trying to charge patent license fees.

Remember that Microsoft isn't too happy with the current state of patents and tried a lot (see the Bilski case) to to reduce the burden of proof placed on the alleged violators. If they had succeeded, they would've weakened their own patent suits substantially but they seem to be okay with that.

> then made a lot of Windows Mobile devices for a long time, which gave them a ton of valuable knowledge about how to make smartphones.

Making a Windows Mobile phone only teaches you how not to make a smartphone. Not to say it's not valuable knowledge.

> Microsoft isn't too happy with the current state of patents

Something that, oddly, doesn't prevent them from using ridiculous patents exactly the way they don't want patents used against them. Their own conduct invalidates their previous position as they seem more than happy to milk every Android licensee until they bleed.

> Making a Windows Mobile phone only teaches you how not to make a smartphone. Not to say it's not valuable knowledge.

I don't follow. Could you elaborate for me?

Let me try(not the GP here).

From 2002 to 2007, the only smartphones in the game were Blackberry and Windows Mobile(and Palm?). The hardware was slow and not mature and the software was slow, clunky and needed a stylus. Battery life was pretty bad, and task management sucked and ate up the battery in no time. Microsoft didn't seem to care too much about Windows Mobile and reportedly just had 5 or so people on the SDK team.

The phones like the iPaq, Axim and many HTC devices saw decent success in the marketplace. The iPhone came and changed the game by leveraging advances in hardware with very good software.

Thus the sneering and snark at a Windows Mobile phone in the GP post. Windows Phone is a completely different beast and seems to have learned from WM though.

I would add that it looks like Microsoft had never considered WM to be a consumer phone: there were competing with RIM and Palm by throwing more enterprise-worth features, not caring about UX in general (other than maintaining UI styling across applications) and letting hadware vendors ship any hardware that minimally does the job and saves vendors' money. With all due respect, Apple was in an unique position: they had underserved consumer market in front of them and right hardware became available (or the processes were advanced enough to accomodate Apple's requirements in system design).

BTW, ever wonder why Apple doesn't ship LTE iPhone? The hardware quality is not there yet and LTE firmwares are still work in progress.

>Making a Windows Mobile phone only teaches you how not to make a smartphone. Not to say it's not valuable knowledge.

You seem to have no idea how hard it is to make mobile hardware. There's a ton of work involved including having to make arrangements with the suppliers, sourcing components,etc. Being a profitable incumbent is a huge advantage compared to a newcomer.

> You seem to have no idea how hard it is to make mobile hardware.

I do, trust me. That's why I value highly the knowledge of how not to make a mobile phone. Like I said, most WinMo phones are lessons on what not to do - styluses, resistive touchscreens (agreed there was a time capacitive touch didn't exist) hard-to-use multitasking and an inflexible, hard to customize OS (I felt that pain too, but, luckily, Windows CE was almost ready to run on our hardware).

There is, indeed, a ton of work involved and zillions of ways things can (and often do) go wrong, but, luckily, you don't have to build Windows Mobile phones to learn that. The Nokia folks, for instance, always had top notch hardware and never built a WinMo phone.

Even if HTC gained that knowledge from their time making WinMo phones and not from their time making hardware for Dell and HP, that knowledge belongs to them and has nothing to do with the OS their phones were running.

I don't follow that logic. Bad patent systems are bad systems, and it's good that MS argued against them. That doesn't make it "OK" for them to exploit the system they argued against. Bad behavior is still bad behavior.

Microsoft is the little-guy using patents to defend themselves against the big-bad-monopolist. This is one of many regulations that promotes innovation. Trust me, I went to school.