Microsoft sues Motorola over Android patent infringements(blogs.technet.com) |
Microsoft sues Motorola over Android patent infringements(blogs.technet.com) |
The question is are the patents used for offense or defense.
Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I certainly am.
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.
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.
EDIT: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/principles/osspatentpledge....
"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."
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.
Thanks for linking, though; I never bothered to familiarize myself with this before.
The pledge you cite (which is legally binding, BTW) is for people implementing specific specifications that Microsoft has listed under specific circumstances.
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: 6,370,566Well, it does not make it right.
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.
The best part, Motorola has a bunch of patents of their own. This will be interesting to see unfold.
I doubt they would without this kind of... incentive.
http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/362876/patent_protec...
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.
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
http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-...
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 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.
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.
Who knows, but you should never speculate based on the patent name.
But patents are complicated animals - we have to pay attention to the specific claims they make.
I am sure they are equally laughable.
If it contributes to Android going away and leaving us to "choose" between Apple and Microsoft controlling our computing experience, then yes.