backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on Oct 27 at 12:11 PM

Group complains that Microsoft's heavy handed license-or-sue approach to Android cries for reform

Mosaic Collateral Asset Management -- or M-CAM for short -- has released a scathing analysis of Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) license-or-lawsuit campaign [1][2][3][4] against Android.

The advocacy group, which calls for "ethical use... of wisdom traditions [patents]", comments:

It's settled. We've figured out Microsoft's costume for this year's Halloween party: Ralphie's pink bunny suit from A Christmas Story.  

Why?

Given its licensing program – and recently, its agreement with Quanta, Amazon’s Kindle Fire manufacturer – why not?  A look at Microsoft’s IP Licensing page tells us
the company “has entered into more than 700 licensing agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors
to access its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio.”

What a deranged marketing ploy.    It's like a creepy dude in an Easter bunny suit offering eggs, and them throwing them if the passerby refuses to take one.

They say that most companies license because merely out of lack of desire to try to clarify what exactly they violate or don't violate and the validity of the patents involved. M-CAM writes:

And this strategy is working because, really, how many manufacturers are going to look through not only Microsoft's 10,000 plus patents, but their own sizeable portfolios as well, just to determine which patents they may or may not be infringing? We doubt even Microsoft’s patent lawyers know what’s in their own portfolio, let alone what’s in their competitors’.   (Of course, they could always enlist the help of their old CTO Nathan Myhrvold, since he seems to have a good grasp on searching through a 35,000 plus patent pool to find assertion gems.)

(Microsoft's ex-CTO is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, an infamous patent troll, which matains a host of shell companies with which to sue people.)

M-CAM reveals that International Business Machines, Inc. (IBM) seemingly holds the most Android related patents, though it thus-far hasn't visibly tried to profiteer off the operating system.  On the other hand, Microsoft sits in second place with over 2,300 patents that seemingly apply to Android.

The group warns that Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- a new Android device maker -- is at great risk as it has only 12 patents, far less than Microsoft's past victims.  But in the end it concludes that in reality everyone is at risk.

It comments on this and the recent ineffectual reform efforts, writing:

So should Amazon be worried?   Sure. Should every company selling a product be worried?   Sadly, a resounding yes.   Until actual patent reform happens – oops, did we just say the latest patent reform bill did nothing to meaningfully improve the system?   Yes, we did.  – and until the “more is better” stockpiling mentality dissipates from both the overcrowded patent law field and the upper echelons of the corporate tech world, every company large enough to receive attention over its technology is a participant in this cold patent war.

Regardless of your feelings on the accuracy of this colorful analysis, one has to admit that it's at least entertaining.

Source: M-CAM



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By Mitch101 on 10/24/2011 9:17:44 PM , Rating: 5
Why Bill Gates Is Giving Away His Fortune
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/GlobalHealth/story?...

I really hate Microsoft is the root of all Evil Articles.




RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By XZerg on 10/24/2011 9:39:31 PM , Rating: 1
Whine and bitch all you want advocacy but be glad that Microsoft didn't serve your arse on a platter similar to Apple of products bans.


RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By TSS on 10/24/2011 10:11:20 PM , Rating: 4
I think the point is that microsoft isn't more or less evil then other companies. Their evil because the system encourages them to be evil -> it's more profitable.

The entire system needs to be reformed. Globally. Maybe go as far as reconsidering the very idea of patents.

Do they really encourage innovation? It seems to me the usage of the patent determines wether it encourages innovation or not. If the patent holder chooses to stifle innovation by not using the patent and sueing anybody who does, that means that patents do not inherintly benifit society, only if the patent holder chooses to.

Obviously money is involved. But does getting rid of patents really mean inventors can no longer get money? They will still be the first to invent something, so they still have the oppertunity of bringing it to market first. In fact, they will be forced to, since it's no longer profitable to just invent something and sit on it. And avoiding the entire legal mess that's the current patent system will make it cheaper to bring to market too.

It will get copied after that sure, but that doesn't mean those copies are of the same quality (thus quality would be encouraged) and the inventor should've made enough money to invent the next product, or further develop the one he has. Also, nowhere does it say the inventor has to share his secrets with the world. The coca-cola recipe is still a secret, and as long as it is, coca-cola will keep raking in the money *even* with all the knock offs that are around.

Shorter patent times are an option, but does it really matter if innovation is stifled 5 years or 90 years?

funnily enough when looking up US patent law for this reply i found that the first-to-invent system was developped off the constitution. specifically: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;", which would mean the comming change to first-to-file would be yet another constitutional violation, as the first to file doesn't have to be the inventor.


RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By amg1 on 10/25/2011 8:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
solution is simple making patent system transparent..so that anyone can buy patent without cutting someone off..pool all the patent and let companies buy which ever they like and fix a price for patents


By bupkus on 10/25/2011 8:52:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
pool all the patent[s] and let companies buy which ever they like and fix a price for patents


iPatents... now available on iTunes, each price set by inventor.*

*Download fees not included.


By Labotomizer on 10/25/2011 9:02:39 AM , Rating: 4
MS is the largest corporate sponsor for patent reform when it comes to software patents. No one ever seems to realize this. MS also doesn't try to stifle innovation with licensing they just want to be compensated for the work they've done. Until the reform happens they have to play by the same rules as everyone else. Ballmer even said the biggest reason for their massive portfolio is to protect themselves. And every patent they go for licensing on is one they already use or are going to implement. MS is anything but a patent troll by the very definition. Even Apple technically isn't, even if they would rather just shut down the competition.


By sprockkets on 10/25/2011 1:13:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
MS is the largest corporate sponsor for patent reform when it comes to software patents. No one ever seems to realize this.


Maybe we don't because they seem to profit handsomely off of it.

quote:
MS also doesn't try to stifle innovation with licensing they just want to be compensated for the work they've done.


You mean like software api's that are not new or novel in any way?

quote:
Ballmer even said the biggest reason for their massive portfolio is to protect themselves. And every patent they go for licensing on is one they already use or are going to implement.


So why are they on the offensive with it?

quote:
Even Apple technically isn't, even if they would rather just shut down the competition.


If apple and MS both are suing for "inventing" the ability for a CPU to talk to a different CPU in a phone, and only sue those who are successful, what is that? Where is apple suing over the BB Storm? Where was apple in an outrage when Nokia for over a decade violated the CPU to phone CPU patent? Why all of a sudden pull it out now against HTC even though they made Palm and WinMob phones that violated that patent also for a decade?

If that isn't trolling, maybe it's submarine warfare.


By robinthakur on 10/25/2011 9:16:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well, yes that's all well and good, but there does need to be some motivation to develop (i.e. spend billions in R&D) and see a return on it without people just reproducing it for free like with Apple and Android. While an optimist would say that a company develops something for the greater good, shareholders would say otherwise.


RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By Motoman on 10/25/2011 11:06:13 AM , Rating: 1
Companies never develop anything for the "common good" - they develop to generate revenue.

Only a non-profit of some kind would ever develp for the "common good."


By callmeroy on 10/25/2011 3:40:09 PM , Rating: 3
That's ridiculous.

And its too easy of a cop out answer too.

You are confused....simply because someone wants to make a profit to earn a living doesn't automatically means profit is the sole driving force to why they started their business.

I love computer games and PC hardware...If good fortune fell on me -- say winning the lotto so I could leave the corporate world and start my own business....doing something I really enjoy -- I could be honestly motivated to provide better service and support as well as a higher quality product for fellow PC gamers....that wouldn't be me not doing anything for the common good.

Getting compensated for honest work is NOT bad and does not mean you have no other motivations for doing business.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/24/2011 10:31:10 PM , Rating: 5
I don't even know what to say to this. The guy must have been paid off by Apple or somebody, that's the only explanation. Apple goes off on a megalomaniac legal ambush with vague and non-specific patent claims to, in Jobs' own words, "destroy" Android. And this dude is calling out Microsoft for legitimate licensing deals on specific and tangible patents representing major R&D by MS?

Something smells here.


RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By NormM on 10/24/2011 11:26:24 PM , Rating: 1
The patent system is obviously a dysfunctional mess, and encourages big companies with lots of patents to extort money from everyone else. But if you're going to quote Jobs you should at least include context. He said that Android was a stolen product. It only exists because Google copied Apple. It's unlikely that Android copied anything from MS. It's just that MS owns so many ideas that any complex piece of software is going to reinvent some of them. Independent invention should be proof that the ideas were obvious, but it isn't. So Apple is suing over theft of ideas, and MS is exploiting pathologies of the patent system.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2011 1:11:20 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
He said that Android was a stolen product.


Which is completely bullshit. You could even say TWO touch "gestures" Android "stole" from iOS. But the entirety of Android being something "stolen" from Apple? That's just nonsense! Google bought Android from Android Inc in 2005! Hello? The iPhone didn't come out until 2007.


By silverblue on 10/25/2011 9:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
Android, Inc., prior to the Google buyout in 2005, were amazingly secretive about their work. I think it's fair to say that only Google and past Android, Inc. employees will know exactly what Android looked like.


By spacemonkey211 on 10/25/2011 12:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
How many cars out there look the same... by the same I mean they have 4 wheels, a stearing wheel on the same side, seats in rows, an engine and storage, and some kind of body to hold it all together.

The car companies should sue each other for stealing their ideas!!!


By Reclaimer77 on 10/25/2011 3:01:03 PM , Rating: 1
Apple didn't invent the mobile OS or the concept of a mobile OS. So I'm not sure how you can make the leap that Google only developed Android to steal from and compete with Apple. Nor do I want to live in a world where idiots like you think one company SHOULD be the sole provider of such things.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?


By callmeroy on 10/25/2011 3:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks that way.


By Etsp on 10/25/2011 9:48:34 AM , Rating: 2
He also said that Windows 1 was a stolen product.


By kleinma on 10/25/2011 10:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
iPhone came out in 2007, but how many years was it in development, with the head of google sitting on Apples board of directors?


RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By nafhan on 10/25/2011 10:27:24 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but Android was totally different until Google saw the iPhone and stole all the ideas (like icons in a grid)! And THEN THEY ADDED IT TO ANDROID BECAUSE THEY ARE EBIL!!!!!$%$#%$!

...or at least that seems to be the current conspiracy. :)


By spacemonkey211 on 10/25/2011 12:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like Apple should sue Microsoft because my desktop's icons are in a grid.

What difference does it make that it is on a mobile device?


By theapparition on 10/27/2011 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure that was sarcasm.


RE: What is evil Microsoft doing with that fortune?
By NormM on 10/25/2011 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the entirety of Android being something "stolen" from Apple? That's just nonsense!


He meant that the UI features that made the iPhone so successful were copied. Before the iPhone, Android was a Blackberry clone.


By sprockkets on 10/25/2011 1:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
And a full screen phone with navigator

http://asia.cnet.com/an-early-look-at-googles-andr...


By Targon on 10/26/2011 5:40:57 AM , Rating: 2
And Apple has been doing a "copy this feature and that feature" from every other product out there, and not even doing it all that well in many cases. If Palm had the marketing abilities that Apple has, then webOS would be the dominant OS right now and iOS would look like an old and stale POS.


By jvillaro on 10/25/2011 1:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't get sarcasm or jokes do you?


Shouldn't MS worry about another anti-trust lawsuit?
By phatboye on 10/24/2011 11:28:40 PM , Rating: 1
I am not sure what the final details of the US v MS anti-trust settlement were but if MS can successfully strong arm a vast majority of the companies using non-MS mobile OSes wouldn't that be a strong argument to bring back up the MS anti-trust lawsuit and place fines on MS for using their dominant position to hurt their competitors bottom line by forcing them into high priced license agreements?




By fcx56 on 10/25/2011 4:48:28 AM , Rating: 4
I'll just go in and remove any trademark from Windows and replace it with a synonym, then give it away for free and only pocket the revenue I make off advertising and application sales. Good thing Microsoft never implemented a ballot box with the appropriate font for me to choose a third-party control panel so we can hit them again, those greedy bastards!!

By "dominant" position are you implying the now-defunct WinMo 6.5 or the under-marketed and practically irrelevant Windows Phone 7?


By spacemonkey211 on 10/25/2011 12:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm... you forgot to mention that you will have to share none of the same source code either...

In essence, create a totally new OS that is not binary compatible, but just vaguely looks like an MS product.


By Gurthang on 10/25/2011 9:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, the anti-trust has nothing to do with this. Patents are essentily a legalized monoply on something for X number for years. The premise is that this protection creates a healthier market by protecting small innovators.

Lets be clear here until a patent is invalidated or has expired, once it is granted that person or company has the right to be the only one to use that "idea". There is no requirement to license to anyone, and unlike brand names where you must defend it ot risk loosing it, if I owned the patent on being an apple fanboy I could sue pirks out of existance but not macdevdude just because I felt macdevdude was not worth my time. And I don't have to sue you as soon as I find out you are infringing, I can wait should I wish until I can do maximum damage to your business its your job to be sure you don't infringe.

Is that a nice way to behave? Nope... so when you complain about what MS is doing realize that they are not trying to crush Android and in some ways might actually help some companies like HTC protect themselves from nastier competitors who just want them out of the market like... Apple *cough*

The anti-trust was all about Microsoft using their dominant OS to push their own browser to the expense of Netscape, and MS abusing their dominant position to force OEMs to only install what MS wanted on the PCs and make it less proftable for companies to offer alternative OS solutions on their PCs. (Although IMHO web browsers should always have been free or bundled with another paid product as they are a "reader/player" type product. And although I find MS's strong arming the OEMs that made it hard for products like OS/2 to compete were bad, If it would mean less crapware on new PCs from OEMs I would almost be willing to let MS dictate what the OEMs can put on new Windows systems for consumers.


Ballmer
By thisisaname on 10/24/2011 9:15:23 PM , Rating: 4
I love the Ballmer in an easter outfit pic! Too funny.




RE: Ballmer
By seeker353 on 10/25/2011 1:12:36 AM , Rating: 2
Ballmer's face is just so creepy. A Christmas Story FTW.


RE: Ballmer
By rburnham on 10/25/2011 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
A Christmas Story! That's where that image is from. Thank you.


These guys are full of it
By troysavary on 10/25/2011 6:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
Does he honestly think all these companies are licensing just because they couldn't be bothered to check what the patents are? Any company willing to fork over millions of dollars just because looking up things is hard deserves to be broke anyway.

Besides, Microsoft, when approaching a company for licensing their patents will be telling them what they are infringing on. That is the way it works. Then the company decides whether to comply or to fight it in court. It appears that MS must have a strong case since pretty much everyone has agreed to royalties.




RE: These guys are full of it
By spacemonkey211 on 10/25/2011 1:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
OR..... they don't want to spend billions in a long term suite that might put their production on hold until it is over (so no profit for years and in the hole) or instead spend millions that just cut into their profits a little now. Doesn't matter if they have a case or not... MS has deep pockets and it is in their best interest to keep the suite going for as long as possible.


RE: These guys are full of it
By stm1185 on 10/25/2011 8:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OR..... they don't want to spend billions in a long term suite that might put their production on hold until it is over (so no profit for years and in the hole) or instead spend millions that just cut into their profits a little now. Doesn't matter if they have a case or not... MS has deep pockets and it is in their best interest to keep the suite going for as long as possible.


Which might be a good argument except that these companies MS has made licensing agreements with are known to not roll over and put up a strong counter fight. Like Samsung which does not back down from a legal fight, their ongoing global war with Apple shows that, and they would not have signed the licensing agreement with MS to just not have to litigate. These are not small companies here, they are mammoth international corporations, they don't just roll over because of some threat of a law suit unless they know for a fact they will lose.


RE: These guys are full of it
By Targon on 10/26/2011 5:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
So, why don't you go out and say what is really going on in the marketplace. Microsoft has valid patents that others are paying royalties to use, and Apple is making vague threats to companies in the effort to shut them down, not just get license fees from.

Microsoft has done MANY bad things over the years, but it has been quite a while since Microsoft has been obviously trying to put other companies out of business. Apple on the other hand is only trying to kill the competition, and all of the anti-Microsoft stuff SHOULD be put aside at the moment to go after the more evil companies that are out there.


What is more evil?
By ltcommanderdata on 10/24/2011 11:34:55 PM , Rating: 5
What is more evil, aggressively, perhaps over aggressively, enforcing your legally granted patents or stealing? I thought analysis of Microsoft's patents indicated that they were generally valid and strong. Clearly Android OEMs either believe they are infringing or are very close to be infringing that it'd be too complicated to defend, so they are licensing Microsoft's patents. However, as soon as "don't be evil" is thrown around, Microsoft is in the wrong for defending their intellectual property. Instead are we to believe that allowing other companies to copy/steal Microsoft's work is less evil?




RE: What is more evil?
By bupkus on 10/25/2011 10:10:10 AM , Rating: 2
The way you have set up your argument dictates your conclusion.

We aren't talking about complex source code duplication here; we seem to be talking about user interface similarities not unlike a speedometer with yellow dials.

What really bugs me is the so called developer who fails to develop a product and then sues someone else who succeeds with a product of the same catagory of service because of a similar look at the most superficial level of development.

I don't think anyone posting comments here wants anyone to be screwed out of either recovering their R&D costs or protecting their IP. I do think the issue is what is commonly seen as a broken system.

The argument that corporate officers who do not aggressively pursue all legal avenues of revenue in behalf of their investors are derelict is weighty. Hence, a broken system must be pursued until it is fixed or until such time that the name brand begins to tarnish in the public's eyes. Enter then the spin doctors.

My personal resentment towards Microsoft's Steve Ballmer may be his entire lack of class, but besides that he also seems to depend on these threats of litigation to replace success in the marketplace. If the shareholders get the same payouts why should they care?

If these gains are nagging at your sense of fairness, if you believe innovation should be leading us forward instead of holding us back, maybe you sense something isn't right in our patent system. Should MS be allowed to bleed investment capital even though they failed at marketing their own phones? Is it okey if they just tax the consumers for their failure?

I completely support copy-write laws to protect against counterfeit products as they claim to be of a brand that they aren't. The same with source code that could involve espionage.

The purpose of a patent system was to protect true innovation and their inventors. This to the end of maximizing enterprise and the economic strength of the Republic. Any system that fails this is faulted and requires correction.

Lets not spend our energies venting on each other but instead press our representatives to move to fix what appears to be broken. Unfortunately, the entrenched see value and have interest in either no change or change in the wrong direction.


Honestly?
By inighthawki on 10/24/2011 9:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to almost every other tech patent like the ones Apple dishes out, most of Microsoft's patents seem fairly justified and rational. And at least they are interested in licensing the tech first, and not just suing to reduce competition.




RE: Honestly?
By spacemonkey211 on 10/25/2011 1:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
That is because WP7 isn't selling... If it was... then they would be doing the same thing as Apple. As it stands, they make more money off of Android royalties than off of WP7. It's all about the money.

For Apple, they will sell many, many more phones if Android wasn't there, so make tons more cash than if they license the tech. It's all about the money.


RE: Honestly?
By Targon on 10/26/2011 5:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is trying to put competitors out of business, Microsoft learned its lesson and just looks to collect royalties from competitors these days. There is a huge difference between Apple TODAY, and Microsoft these days.


I'm not a gambling man....
By espaghetti on 10/24/2011 10:13:49 PM , Rating: 5
I just wonder who props up a so-called "advocacy" group like this...
Wait I it says that they are for hire to represent corporations with media campaigns on their website. Wow, so company A & B doesn't like what company C does, so they hire this "advocacy group" to run a smear campaign. Que boring P.R. guy on Bloomberg news to babble incoherently for the investor types and run story on DT for tech junkies.

Roll over....Roll over....Good boy...Who's a good boy...you need a treat.




Android clearly "borrowed" from many sources
By stm1185 on 10/25/2011 1:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
With Google knowing they'd give it away for free and make their money off the app sales and advertising; so they built Android off the works of others. Now MS and Apple are coming after the companies selling Android because of it. MS is making licensing agreements for a few dollars per handset. While Apple is going for the throat and getting devices outright banned from sale.

What I took away from this piece:
"Microsoft sits in second place with over 2,300 patents that seemingly apply to Android." 2300 patents. Even if only 10% of those truly apply, that's still a lot.




By ltcommanderdata on 10/25/2011 2:16:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
With Google knowing they'd give it away for free and make their money off the app sales and advertising; so they built Android off the works of others.

It's interesting you point that out because Google's attitude does seem something along those lines. In the Oracle vs. Google Java trial, the judge asked both parties to provide damage estimates to be paid to Oracle if Google ends up being found guilty of infringement. Oracle proposed an extremely high valuation that the judge threw out. What's notable was the damage estimate that Google proposed: zero. Google argued in court that since it gives away its OS for free, even if it copies other people's IP and is found guilty of infringement in court, it doesn't owe the victim anything. It feels advertisement revenue doesn't count. It's almost like Google believes that even though they lead Android development, as long as they give the OS away for free they can basically take anything from anyone and not have to pay anyone anything. Judge Alsup threw out that line of reasoning as "ridiculous" and "totally wrong".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/21/us-oracl...

quote:
Google maintains that Oracle deserves no damages.

"Zero is ridiculous," said Alsup, who rejected Google's argument that its ad sales should not be included in estimating damages from the Android system.

"They're totally wrong on that," Alsup said.


By Rage187 on 10/25/2011 8:34:49 AM , Rating: 3
I believe this is an independent entity just as much as I believe those corn sugar commercials.




Sue or be sued
By tayb on 10/25/2011 9:09:35 AM , Rating: 3
Microsoft is a STRONG supporter of patent reform and has mentioned time and time again that it collects patents for defense, not offense.

Sure, Microsoft is making money from this, but I think they have a right to profit off some of the ideas they have created. They aren't trying to stifle competition or litigate enemies out of existence they are offering to PARTNER with other companies to share patents, for a fee of course.

Microsoft is on the receiving end of patent litigation far more often.




What is this garbage?
By wpodonnell on 10/24/2011 9:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
"Advocacy group"? That's funny, because M-CAM describes themselves as an "innovation and intangible asset management firm." Nice journalism - pick up the rant of a company that wants more skin in the game and call it news-worthy.




lol
By NellyFromMA on 10/25/2011 8:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds like they are just Android fans or in general anti MS and are just just upset that the rules aren't in there favor and that their team has been penalized. Tough life. I probably don't take groups seriously that back their claims with commentary like calling them 'deranged easter bunnies'. No credibility IMO.

Since Android is open source, and you like Android, all companies should adopt similar policies with their IPs and products right?

Cry more.




Defensible
By djdjohnson on 10/25/2011 10:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
And Samsung is one of those poor companies too small to defend itself, or analyze the patent portfolio for validity? They're one of the largest tech companies in the world. And they signed the deal.

I think MS has the right to defend its IP here. The more I analyze Android it seems that its developers fully ignored the intellectual property of others. It may not have been intentional, but they certainly aren't trying to set things right either.




respect
By p05esto on 10/25/2011 9:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm starting to lose respect for sites like DT with the constant and stupid MS hate articles. Microsoft is in my opinion the most level-headed business out there in regards to their patents. They have been THE major player in the computer industry since the 70s and of course have invented a TON of stuff, they are far from a patent troll. Any moron can see that if MS invented the tech then they have every right to it exclusively and could tell every other company to pound sand if they want. This is what Apple is trying to do, total azzholes.

Microsoft is almost always willing to license their technology for the good of the industry and promote competition. You can't blame them for getting paid royalties. What, should they just give their R&D away from the goodness of their hearts? Then they will go bankrupt....stupid articles, stupid drama, go after the lame companies like Apple, Not Microsoft...the tides of favor are a changing, didn't you get the memo, MS is cool again.




"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki