EVER since the story of CPTN we have hardly seen federal agents doing anything about Microsoft's patent abuses (abuses with patents). Even the Nortel episode hardly brought up any federal perils, unlike the Motorola one. Microsoft cannot play by the rules, so it does not play by them, it changes them. Instead, it attacks the competition's right to exist and it recruits proxies to help with it, just like it did with SCO.
"Microsoft cannot play by the rules, so it does not play by them, it changes them."B&N is back in the headlines after its somewhat old complaint because it seeks a Department of Justice probe into Microsoft extortion against Linux/Android. To quote: "Barnes & Noble says Microsoft is attempting tamp down competition in the mobile market by demanding licensing fees for the use of Android, and has asked the Department of Justice to step in.
"Barnes & Noble has accused Microsoft of attempting to stifle innovation in the mobile device market by demanding royalties for the use of Android, for which Microsoft owns a number of key software patents, reports Bloomberg. The book giant has asked the US Department of Justice to launch an antitrust investigation against Microsoft."
Here is excellent coverage, but for corporate press lovers there is another shallow report:
Barnes & Noble is asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Microsoft's patent-licensing tactics, accusing the software giant of trying to thwart competition with flimsy infringement claims. "Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals' costs in order to drive out competition and deter innovation in mobile devices," Barnes & Noble lawyer Peter T. Barbur wrote in an October 17 letter to Gene I. Kimmelman, the chief counsel for competition policy in the Justice Department's antitrust division. "Microsoft's conduct poses serious antitrust concerns and warrants further exploration by the Department of Justice."
In spite of marketing blitzes and many available phones, the latest numbers from comScore show that Microsoft continues to struggle to gain market share, actually losing .2 in percentage of subscribers running a Microsoft mobile OS in the latest figures.
Microsoft wants a share of Huawei's Android profits
[...]
"Microsoft has come to us," said the Chinese manufacturer's chief marketing officer at an event in London last night,
A 29-page slide deck – made public this week in Microsoft’s patent lawsuit against Barnes & Noble — outlines, in great detail, the bookseller’s objections to the software company’s campaign to collect patent licensing fees from Android device makers. According to the cover page, the presentation was given by Barnes & Noble’s lawyers to Justice Department antitrust officials this summer.
Beyond Microsoft's own patents, Barnes & Noble also raised concerns over deals that Microsoft has entered into with Nokia and MOSAID. In September, MOSAID acquired 2,000 wireless technology patents from Nokia. Instead of paying for these patents, MOSAID announced that it had entered a revenue-sharing scheme with Nokia and Microsoft; two-thirds of any revenue generated by licenses or lawsuits will be given to Microsoft and Nokia.
Google lawyer: Why the patent system is broken
Google stands at the center of the escalating mobile patent wars, as the developer of the Android operating system that triggered scores of lawsuits and countersuits.
Depending on whom you ask, the company is either the high-minded adult in the debate du jour over intellectual property - or a blatant patent thief.
In an interview with The Chronicle, Google's patent counsel, Tim Porter, argues that the system itself is broken.
For too long, the patent office granted protection to broad, vague or unoriginal ideas masquerading as inventions. That inevitably led to the legal dramas now unfolding, he said.
There's certainly no question that the Mountain View online giant's smart-phone software has been hugely successful. By offering a free operating system, it enabled companies like HTC, Motorola and Samsung to deliver devices that could compete with Apple's breakthrough gadgets.
Android now claims 43 percent of the smart-phone operating system market, compared with 28 percent for the iPhone and 18 percent for RIM's BlackBerry, according to a recent Nielsen report.
Barnes & Noble Urges U.S. to Probe Microsoft on Patents
Barnes & Noble Inc. (BKS) asked U.S. regulators to investigate whether Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) seeks to monopolize the mobile-device market by demanding patent royalties on electronics running on Google Inc.’s Android operating system.
“Microsoft is embarking on a campaign of asserting trivial and outmoded patents against manufacturers of Android devices,” Barnes & Noble said in an Oct. 17 letter to Gene Kimmelman, the Justice Department’s chief counsel for competition policy. “Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals’ costs in order to drive out competition and to deter innovation in mobile devices.”
The world’s largest software maker accused New York-based Barnes & Noble of infringing five patents and filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, seeking to block imports of the Nook readers. Barnes & Noble made public four letters and a presentation to the Justice Department in a filing with the commission yesterday.
Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington, contends it owns patented inventions that are used in the Android operating system, and has struck licensing deals with companies including Samsung Electronics Co. and HTC Corp. (2498), two of the biggest makers of Android phones.
“All modern operating systems include many patented technologies,” Microsoft said in a statement. “Microsoft has taken licenses to patents for Windows and we make our patents available on reasonable terms for other operating systems, like Android. We would be pleased to extend a license to Barnes & Noble.”
Barnes & Noble, book seller and maker of Android based Nook devices, has called on the US Department of Justice to investigate Microsoft's demands for patent royalties on devices that run Android. Bloomberg reports that, in a letter to Gene Kimmelman, the DOJ's chief counsel for competition policy, Barnes & Noble says that "Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals' costs in order to drive out competition and to deter innovation in mobile devices."
During the third quarter of 2011, the list of new corporate OIN licensees affirming their support for Linux and freedom of action included the following:
1. Ark Linux 2. BackBox Linux 3. Bigtux 4. CAINE-Live CD 5. Clique Studios 6. Conecta Research 7. Edimax Technology Co., Ltd.
8. Endless Ideas BV 9. Fuduntu 10. Helal Linux 11. HTC Corporation 12. iGolaware 13. Lactien Computing 14. LG Electronics, Inc. 15. Likinux 16. LinuxCertified Inc. 17. Linux-EduCD 18. LuninuX OS 19. NEWTOOS Project 20. nLight, s.r.o. 21. OpenAPC Project Group 22. Otakux GNU/Linux 23. Poseidon Linux 24. Socialinventurebiz 25. Solderpad Limited 26. Sophos Limited 27. Swift Linux 28. UbuBox SalentOS
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer: ’Android has a patent fee. It’s not like Android’s free. You do have to license patents.’
Both HTC and LG announced patent licensing agreements today, as activity in the mobile patent space continues to heat up. First, both companies joined the Open Invention Network (OIN), an intellectual property company formed to protect Linux-based innovation by pooling patents. Members donate certain patents from their portfolios to the community on a royalty-free basis, agreeing not to assert those patents against other member companies over Linux-related products or innovations. While it's debatable whether this patent alliance can provide HTC and LG significant protection from the various threats to Android, it seems clear that both companies believe that there's safety in numbers - with OIN touting companies like Google, IBM, HP and Sony as community licensees.
Legal tangles over patents are stifling innovation and will lead to stagnation in the tech industry, said Google's chief patent lawyer in a newspaper interview in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"The concern is that the more people get distracted with litigation, the less they'll be inventing," said Tim Porter, Google's patent counsel.
Google are particularly touchy on the patent issue, with their mobile OS Android on the receiving end of several attacks from Oracle, Microsoft, and Apple. Apple have specifically targeted Android's partners – Samsung and HTC – in obstructive lawsuits that span the globe.
Google: Microsoft uses patents when products "stop succeeding"
A Google patent lawyer says that the patent system is broken, and he accuses Microsoft of abusing the system. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle on Sunday, Google's Tim Porter pointed to Microsoft's attacks on Linux as an example of its broader corporate strategy.
"When their products stop succeeding in the marketplace, when they get marginalized, as is happening now with Android, they use the large patent portfolio they've built up to get revenue from the success of other companies' products," he said.
Microsoft has argued that the patent royalties it seeks from Android vendors are part of the natural evolution of a new industry. Porter disagrees.
"Microsoft was our age when it got its first software patent," he said. "I don't think they experienced this kind of litigation in a period when they were disrupting the established order. So I don't think it's historically inevitable."
Of course, the reason Microsoft didn't have to worry about patents during its first dozen years was because the courts and the patent office didn't allow patents on software until the 1980s. Indeed, the idea of patents on software alarmed Bill Gates, who wrote in 1991 (when Microsoft was already older than Google is now) that "the industry would be at a complete standstill" if software had been eligible for patent protection in the early days of the industry. He worried that "some large company will patent some obvious thing," enabling the company to "take as much of our profits as they want."
Five things I learned from the Q&A:
1. “Innovation happens without patents.” In other words, deregulation helps. 2. A large part of the current mobile court scrum is due to “a 10- or 15-year period when the issuance of software patents was too lax.” 3. “You shouldn’t patent something that’s obvious.” The question, of course, is what’s obvious to whom. 4. Huge damages awards are fueling patent lawsuits. Bring these more into scale with the complaint and reduce the backlog of frivolous claims. 5. This environment has pressured companies like Google to spend enormous sums of money to purchase patent portfolios for legal defense.
Lodsys is a new type of business - one that doesn't actually make anything or come up with new ideas - but lives by registering patent claims and then taking court action against companies it claims have used its technology.
For those targeted by such firms there is a choice - employ expensive patent lawyers or simply agree to hand over licensing fees.
For a small business, without the resources to fight lengthy legal battles, it is deeply worrying. "It's another risk that we will now have to consider," David Hart told me. "When you do anything of an innovative nature there's a danger it won't work, that's one risk, now this is another."
What's at the heart of this is something that is much easier to obtain in the US than in Europe - software patents. For many on both sides of the Atlantic, they should not be allowed at all.
Vint Cerf, one of the fathers of the internet, seems to agree. When we interviewed him at Google, where he now works, he told us that software patents posed a real threat to innovation. "I see it as hindering innovation in a really dramatic way."
Mr Cerf looks back to the seventies when, with another computer scientist Bob Kahn, he was developing some of the key technologies that led to the birth of the Internet. He says they never patented any of their ideas.
Comments
Michael
2011-11-11 01:14:42
Now let us look at your FUD: Roy, you already spoke of your "envy" of Apple. One does not envy aggression; one envies success. Let us not pretend otherwise.
Then you claim Apple started aggression by banning Android devices. This is a lie - Apple has no such power. The courts do. The courts banned Android devices. And they did so because they agreed with Apple that Android was the one who started the "war". They broke the law to copy Apple.
Now you note there are those who are pushing the war by going against the law *again*.
FUD: Apple opted for litigation as a response to unfair competition. Remember, it has already been shown that Samsung was copying Apple far more than just being inspired by them. This is not something that anyone has been able to refute:
http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg http://goo.gl/S2AJR http://goo.gl/bWDs6 http://goo.gl/NjrfV
Add to that, you claim that Apple is not competing well. OK, so what product is earning higher user satisfaction ratings? What product is earning the company that makes it more money? The answer to both: none. Apple is winning on *both* metrics - better for consumers and better for the company making it. So what makes you think Apple is not competing well when they are winning in the two most important metrics?
FUD: How is this even relevant? Early versions of Android were nothing like modern ones... nor like iOS.
FUD: You keep saying this but never supporting it. Again, the data is above: it is clear Samsung, at least, was copying Apple *massively* (far more than just being inspired by a competing product). You claim Apple started this was even though the data shows otherwise.
So why don't you at least *try* to show where the data that has been presented to you is wrong? Why not try to support your claim?