Microsoft facing Android patent competition probe

Funny...

That a retailer doesn't seem to understand the concept of patents and licensing.

Maybe customers could try walking out of the store without paying for books, after all, they are trivial and there are hundreds of years worth of prior art...

By big_D on 10 Nov 2011

Surely...

If the patents are, as B & N say, 'trivial and outmoded' then they would have no need to use them in a modern and competitive product from which they intend to derive income?

By Tomble2 on 10 Nov 2011

Really Funny

Maybe customers are looking forward to walking into a store and the only book is Merriam Websters dictionary (as they have sued all the other authors off the shelves claiming they own all the words). I hope they don't find out you and I have used some of them without a license.

By Toxmarz on 10 Nov 2011

Hilarious Toxmarz

"I have used some of them without a license."

Or you could invent some new words, as Google should have done with Android, instead of stealing other peoples work.

By chapelgarth on 10 Nov 2011

You say potato I say potata

According to Barnes & Noble \ Google:

“Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals’ costs in order to drive out competition and to deter innovation in mobile devices.”

An alternative reading is that paying MS royalties actualy LEVELS the metaphorical 'playing field'. It does this by preventing Android makers from having an unfair competitive advantage gained through having a 'free' operating system based on technolgies that MS and others had to spend money on developing.

By wittgenfrog on 10 Nov 2011

Clarification (@big_D, Tomble2, chapelgarth, wittgenfrog)

The issue is not solely about patent rights but licencing costs and terms. B&N is saying that Microsoft is using these patents selectively (and thus anti-competitively) against individual suppliers, thus they want B&N to pay more than Samsung, HTC et al. Microsoft also insist that all licence deals are entered under non-disclosure so that no vendor can compare their deal with Microsoft with others to see if they are comparable and fair.

As an example of Microsoft's selective behaviour, almost every NAS device available runs linux and provides the FAT functionality that Microsoft is asserting against B&N but no NAS vendor has been forced to cross-licence these patents.

Ultimately the courts will decide but almost all the matters on which Microsoft is active are features of Linux and not features specific to Android, which contains a high level of original code provided by Google - almost all the fuctionality specific to mobile use is original rather than borrowed work.

By milliganp on 11 Nov 2011

Patents

Rights holders are continuously asserting that patents encourage innovation through protection. Is it not apparent to everyone that not only is this untrue, it is the polar opposite? I don't disagree that inventors should be compensated for their work, but wouldn't innovation be increased exponentially by mandatory, set-price licensing?

By dubiou on 12 Nov 2011