IN THE FORM of "Android", Linux is taking over yet more areas of computing. Apple and Microsoft are both rather nervous because nothing technical that they can do is going to stop Google. Instead then, Microsoft goes ever more thuggish and Apple gets very litigious (at least Apple names the patents, but it does not sue Google, instead targeting those further down the 'food chain'). Google is "disappoint[ed]” to see Apple and Microsoft forming yet another patent cartel against rivals like Google and the second Microsoft booster in a while plays along with a headline like "Is Android Microsoft's next cash cow?"
In the hunt for the next billion-dollar business, Microsoft may have discovered one in mobile software. It costs Microsoft nothing to produce and sell, and it's not Windows Phone.
It's Android, the wildly popular — and free — mobile-phone software made by competitor Google.
In the past nine months, Microsoft has gone after a handful of companies that make Android phones and tablets.
It has either sued or persuaded the companies to pay it license fees for some technologies found in certain Android features. Microsoft contends it has patents on those technologies.
This story sheds light on the recent string of stories about Microsoft demanding royalty payments from various companies that produce smart phones built on Google’s Android operating system. Intuitively, this doesn’t make much sense. Most people would say that Google has been more innovative than Microsoft in recent years—especially in the mobile phone market—so why is Microsoft the one collecting royalties?
The reason is that Microsoft has more patents than Google. A lot more. The patent office has awarded Google about 700 patents in its 13-year lifetime. Microsoft has received 700 patents in the last four months. Microsoft’s total portfolio is around 18,000 patents, and most of those were granted within the last decade.
Even if you think Microsoft is more innovative than Google, the engineers in Redmond obviously haven’t been 25 times as innovative as those in Mountain View. So why the huge discrepancy?
Getting software patents takes a lot of work, but it’s not primarily engineering effort. The complexity of software and low standards for patent eligibility mean that software engineers produce potentially patentable ideas all the time. But most engineers don’t think of these relatively trivial ideas as “inventions” worthy of a patent. What’s needed to get tens of thousands of patents is a re-education campaign to train engineers to write down every trivial idea that pops into their heads, and a large and disciplined legal bureaucracy to turn all those ideas into patent applications.
[...]
The result is a transfer of wealth from young, growing, innovative companies like Google to mature, bureaucratic companies like Microsoft and IBM—precisely the opposite of the effect the patent system is supposed to have.
So then, a question for people who think that software patents are out of control: what should the rule be? No patents at all on software or business processes? Probably not. But if patents aren't flatly banned on business processes, is there some kind of rule that would raise the bar in a reasonable way on just how novel something has to be to deserve a patent? I hear a lot of complaints about software and business process patents, and I'm sympathetic to them. But exactly what kind of reform would improve things?
According to Microsoft, Google's Android OS is infringing on many of its patents and hence those manufacturers who use Android for their devices owe royalties to Microsoft. But the intriguing fact is that, instead of suing Google itself for infringing on its patents, Microsoft is finding it easy to sue or threaten smaller firms which don't have the financial muscle to fight a legal battle with the Redmond troll giant. Following is the list of companies who are already paying royalties or being sued by Microsoft for using Android.
While Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) may have lost its claim to the phrase “Appstore” in court, it’s not giving up its other creations without a fight…
The company recently issued a warning to Samsung, claiming that the smartphone manufacturer was basically just selling an iPhone copycat.
In the lawsuit, Apple alleges that Samsung not only mirrored the iPhone’s form factor with the Galaxy S, but also that some of the user interface elements infringed on its software patents.
As if that wasn’t enough, Apple also demanded that the U.S. court order Samsung to take the device off the market and pay for damages and lost profits.
I thought you guys would want to know an intriguing detail in the Lodsys against the World litigations. Novell has filed its answer [PDF] to Lodsys in the Lodsys v. Brother et al case in Eastern Texas -- a patent infringement case, same patents, but not against apps developers -- and it's the mighty Sterling Brennan of Workman Nydegger listed on the team representing Novell. Lodsys is in trouble now, methinks. Brennan was also prominently on the team that won for Novell against SCO in the jury trial, if you recall. I thought he was stupendous.
Novell asserts four counterclaims regarding the two patents Lodsys asserts against Novell, asking for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement. And its affirmative defenses include failure to mitigate damages. That makes me smile, because Lodsys is in what business, exactly, leading to what damages? And that's Novell's point, which it makes explicit in another affirmative defense: "Lodsys's Complaint, and each and every claim for relief therein, is barred because Lodsys has not suffered any damages."
This document presents information about patents and patent liability useful for developers working on community distributions of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). By community distributions, we mean collections of free software packages maintained and distributed by organizations composed of volunteers, where neither the organization nor the volunteers seek to make a profit from the activity. Such community-based distributions may sell as well as give away their work product, possibly on CDs or USB storage media or by paid-for downloads as well as by gratis distribution.
This document has been prepared by lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) at the request of the Debian project, and may be helpful to similar community FOSS distributions. Its statements about legal matters are accurate as of the date of composition regarding US law, and may be applicable to other legal systems. But this document does not constitute legal advice. It has not been based on analysis of any particular factual situation, and any lawyer providing an opinion on the questions presented below would need to ascertain the particular facts and circumstances that might vary this information in a particular setting. You should not rely upon this document to make decisions affecting your project's legal rights or responsibilities in a real-life situation without consulting SFLC or other lawyers.
Comments
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-07-10 08:22:34
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-07-10 08:50:24
BenderBendingRodriguez
2011-07-10 09:57:35
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2011-07-10 10:18:29