| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-29 10:48:54 |
| Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair. |
|
| RE: Lame. |
| By Drumhellar on 2012-07-29 19:50:58 |
|
> The justice system, flawed as it may be, is what separates us from the barbarians of old. In fact, it may be the only thing. Well, that, and argyle socks. |
 - Score: 4 |
| RE[2]: Comment by some1 |
| By some1 on 2012-07-29 19:58:03 |
|
I don't think we know how much they actually ask for those patents. There are rumors about $10-15 per device, but then there are rumors about much smaller amounts, or even that MS ends up paying money as a result of cross-licensing (like was the case with Novell). I agree that VFAT patent is garbage and should have been invalidated long time ago. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[3]: Comment by some1 |
| By Bennie on 2012-07-29 20:35:42 |
| I thought Microsoft could not use their monopoly position on the desktop market to get an advantage in another market (patent extortion). They still have a desktop monopoly and because of their refusal to support other file systems, manufacturers of Flash memory are obliged to put FAT file systems on SD-cards, and memory sticks. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE: Whining by proxy |
| By Sodki on 2012-07-29 21:03:52 |
|
> Google are an advertising company... Yes, but not only. > ... and I am not their customer I am their product, ... No, you're a way to sell their product. The clients are the advertisers, the product is the advertising network. > ... their business is about collecting data about me, and countless millions of other people, and selling that data to advertisers so they can target their advertising at me. Actually, no. |
| - Score: 6 |
| Comment by kurkosdr |
| By kurkosdr on 2012-07-29 21:18:41 |
|
As long as Motorola Mobility is under Google ownership, there will be at least one brand that makes Androids and doesn't pay extortion royalties. For some reason, I can't imagine Google agreeing to pay MS and Apple said extortion royalties. Google will redesign and redesign the products to remove any "infrigments" of "patents" the courts found and fight to invalidate the dubious patents MS and Apple are flashing, but one thing they are not going to do is bend over. So, eventually MS and Apple will have to butt heads with Google directly, much like the IBM vs SCO situation (remember, SCO didn't go directly for IBM either), and the whole thing will end. Edited 2012-07-29 21:20 UTC |
| - Score: 0 |
| RE: Comment by kurkosdr |
| By smashIt on 2012-07-29 21:34:52 |
|
> For some reason, I can't imagine Google agreeing to pay MS and Apple said extortion royalties. You forgert that MS still is a technology-corporation that in fact hold some real patents (and invest a lot of money in research-projects) because of that a crosslicensing-deal with ms wouldn't surprise me |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Comment by some1 |
| By cfgr on 2012-07-29 22:39:37 |
|
Exactly! I've been wondering the same thing. How is this not an obvious abuse of their monopoly? They force FAT on all device makers and then collect royalties. Without their desktop monopoly different, patent-free and simply better filesystems could be implemented. Why is there no anti-trust investigation into this behaviour? Edited 2012-07-29 22:42 UTC |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[2]: Comment by NuxRo |
| By sbenitezb on 2012-07-29 23:33:03 |
| Screw that! Report on what's worth it and ignore the other shit. I'm not going to get angry. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Microsoft? |
| By Vanders on 2012-07-30 00:00:53 |
| Microsoft couldn't destroy a wet paper bag in a rainstorm, in the mobile space. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by NuxRo |
| By Nico57 on 2012-07-30 00:10:05 |
|
German panzers. (And Nazi officers.) There's no political inclination in a bunch of steel plates. |
| - Score: 5 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |