backtop


Print 32 comment(s) - last by magreen.. on Oct 26 at 9:26 AM

Microsoft has transitioned from a producer to a litigator in terms of revenue

While Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) noisy legal vendetta [1][2][3][4] [5][6][7][8] [9][10][11] against Google Inc.'s (GOOG) world-leading Android operating system has generating headlines due to Apple's desire to ban its competitor, Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT) own legal battle against Android has gone underreported and largely misunderstood.

With Microsoft reporting the latest addition to its family of forced Android patent licensees -- Compal Electronics, Inc. (TPE:2324) -- this seems like the perfect time to break down what Microsoft is doing here and the good, bad, and ugly aspects of its actions.

I. Why is Microsoft Suing and Forcing Licensing on Android OEMs/ODMs?

Microsoft is apt to drop phrases like "reasonable and fair" and "needs of our customers and partners", but let us face the sticky reality -- no one really wants to pay Microsoft millions in licensing fees.

The licensing quest is largely a byproduct of Microsoft's unique position -- or perhaps more bluntly put, failure in the market.  

Along with Nokia, Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V) and the defunct Palm (acquired and essentially killed by Hewlett-Packard Comp. (HPQ)), Microsoft was one of the first companies to launch what we would call today a "smartphone".  And Microsoft was perhaps the most zealous pioneer in terms of patenting fundamental smartphone OS mechanisms.

Despite that pioneering role, Microsoft is essentially a failure in today's mobile market from a pure unit sales perspective.  Windows Phone 7 languishes in market share.  

As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.  Amid this backdrop, Microsoft has turned from primarily being a producer of smartphones to primarily being an R&D-based litigator on the smartphone market, employing its treasure trove of smartphone and operating system patents to milk money [1][2][3] from Android device makers via threat of lawsuit.  

This transition is inarguably illustrated in the company's financials.  Microsoft now makes more money off of licensing its intellectual property to smartphone rivals than it does off its own mobile devices.

II. Who is Microsoft Suing; Who is Microsoft Licensing to?

With the addition of Compal to its stable of licensees, Microsoft estimates it now gets a cut of the revenue of over half of Android smartphones.

Its general counsel Horacio Gutierrez characterizes these agreements as "fair".  He elaborates:

Amidst continuing clamor about uncertainty and litigation relating to smartphone patents, we're putting in place a series of agreements that are reasonable and fair to both sides. Our agreements ensure respect and reasonable compensation for Microsoft's inventions and patent portfolio. Equally important, they enable licensees to make use of our patented innovations on a long-term and stable basis.

At this point Microsoft reveals that it has forced the following companies into licensing agreements:
  1. Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO 005930)
  2. HTC Corp. (SEO:066570)
  3. Acer Inc. (TPE:2353
  4. Viewsonic Corp.
  5. Onkyo Corp. (JSD:6628)
  6. General Dynamics Corp. (GD) (owners of Itronix, a maker of rugged tablets)
  7. Velocity Micro, Inc.
  8. Wistron Corp. (TPE:3231)
  9. Quanta Computer Inc. (TPE:2382)
  10. Compal
And it's suing:
  1. Motorola Mobility -- a subsidiary of Google Inc. (GOOG)
  2. Barnes & Noble, Inc. (BKS)
  3. Foxconn -- a subsidiary of Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd. (TPE:2317)
  4. Inventec Corp. (TPE:2356)
Android licenses and litigation
[Source: Microsoft]

Interestingly, Microsoft appears to be double dipping, seeking licensing fees both from the "original equipment manufacturer" (OEM) who mostly designs the device (e.g. Samsung) and from the "original device manufacturer" (ODM) who primarily handles manufacturing the device (e.g. Foxconn).  Microsoft claims to have forced 55 percent of the Android ODMs and 53 percent of Android OEMs, in terms of U.S. sales, into licensing agreements.

Android licensing
[Source: Microsoft]

Microsoft complains about the holdouts, stating:

For those who continue to protest that the smartphone patent thicket is too difficult to navigate, it's past time to wake up. As Microsoft has entered new markets from the enterprise to the Xbox, we’ve put together comprehensive licensing programs that address not only our own needs but the needs of our customers and partners as well. As our recent agreements clearly show, Android handset manufacturers are now doing the same thing. Ultimately, that's a good path for everyone.

Basically, Microsoft's approach appears to be to try to charge both the device marker and the device manufacturer in order to pile the fees on Android.  This serves a double purpose.  First, Microsoft hopes that it may convince some companies like Samsung and HTC to drop Android and adopt its Windows Phone.  

However, if it can't  convince them to do that, it will at least guarantee itself some big profits, piggybacking on Android's success.  Microsoft reportedly makes up to $15 per licensed handset sold.  In fact, it reportedly gets more money from Android than it does from its own Windows Phone, which has a tiny market share.

Best of all, Microsoft can somewhat avoid "looking like the bad guy", by trying to push licensing as an alternative to litigation.  As a result, while its scheme is arguably almost as damaging to Android as Apple's, it has received less criticism in the tech media sphere.

III. What IP Violations is Android Accused of?

One question a lot of people ask is what patents exactly Microsoft is using in this intellectual property protection scheme.  The Motorola lawsuit reveals important details about exactly what Microsoft is licensing, and claiming Android infringes upon.

Listed below are all the patents used in that lawsuit, their filing date (very important), their approval date, and whether they originally were intended towards desktop Windows, or mobile Windows. 
This is a relatively old Windows patent, which covers using a dual set of files names, one short and one long.  This patent is relatively "strong" as Microsoft was indeed one of the first ones to take this approach.  Significantly, it will expire in 2013, as utility patents have a lifetime of 20 years (thanks for the correction Theoz!). This patents is very similar to the first namespace patent -- it also covers filename shortening and handling a dual set of short/long file names.  This patent also expires in 2013, given the original filing date. Flash memory can be corrupted in various ways.  In this patent Microsoft covers erasing "dirty" segments of flash memory, when the amount of available blocks gets low. All 3G devices are essentially covered by this patent.  Microsoft claims invention of the  radio interface layer (RIL), an API which is used to separate the hardware from the OS software.  Basically this is the same concept as a "driver".  Apple clearly is in violation of this patent (as is pretty much everyone else).  This patent is likely a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (F/RAND) patent, given its relation to wireless signalling technology.  This may be one reason why Microsoft is seeking to license it before suing.

This patent seems relatively weak, in that it's hard to believe Nokia, Samsung, and others didn't have some sort of API in place back in 2001.  Of course, with the shift from first to invent to first to patent in the U.S., prior art may be a moot point. The utility covered in this patent is the adding of a contact, via your call history.  Again, both Android and Apple appear to be in clear violation of this patent.  Namely, in both operatings iOS and Android you can click a call from an unrecognized number and select to make it a contact, with the number prepopulated into a field in the contact card -- this is precisely what Microsoft's claims to have invented in this patent.

Add Contact to Android

Again, the big issue here may be prior art.  The patent was filed in 2002, making its originality a bit more feasible, but it still seems a bit surprising that no other OEM -- including Nokia -- had implemented the ability to add calls from unknown numbers to contacts prior to 2002. In this patent Microsoft claims invention of a notification system, similar to that used in iOS and Android.  "Clients" (apps/services) register with the system via API calls.  Notifications lead to messages being displayed, applications being launched, or other actions.

Android notifications

Again, the key thing here is prior art and the filing date.  Microsoft filed for this patent way back in 2004.  At the time notifications were nothing new in the PC setting, but it's very possible Microsoft was the first to dream up this being applied in the mobile end. This patent covers pop up menus that occur when you hover over or click on certain elements in the GUI.  Again, this kind of mechanism is found all over Android and iOS -- it is very ubiquitous.

Android Popups

Aside from arguments surrounding prior art in the PC realm, the applicability of this PC patent to the mobile realm is debatable.  If it is indeed valid, it will expire in two years, so Android (and iOS) may be granted a reprieve here.
This patent covers filed caching and reconciliation between locally modified copies of a single document being edited on various clients.  This is essentially how offline access to a number of services like Google Docs works, and clearly Microsoft's patent precedes Google Docs.

Again, there may be a prior art claim here, but Microsoft patent appears pretty non-obvious and strong, particularly given the filing date.
Windows Mobile began very much as a business-assistant device, much like Palm's lineups.  By the time the smartphone had transitioned to an entertainment device -- a transition largely spurred by Apple's iPhone -- Microsoft was already falling behind.  However, in its golden era, where the focus was on business, Microsoft came out with a number of innovations in that arena.

This patent covers sending a meeting request via a calendar application, tracking the status of sent requests, and removing duplicate requests to reduce network load.  Google Calendar (as well as the calendar app in iOS) appear to infringe upon this early mobile IP.

IV. Conclusions

At the end of the day, when it comes to patent disputes the questions most consumers ask are:
  1. Is the invention non-obvious?
  2. Is the invention novel, and without prior art? (Patenting others' ideas is a pretty dirty tactic, albeit encouraged by recent patent law changes.)
  3. Is the IP used in a "fair" way, such that licensing is sought on industry standards.
Unlike Apple, whose patents -- such as the infamous "GUI bounceback" animation patent used in a variety of Android suits -- are largely relatively obvious and simplistic, Microsoft's patents are in most cases more novel and complicated.  Further, their application tends to be more narrow, versus Apple's broad claims of ownership of minimalist mobile devices.

In terms of prior art, Microsoft also appears to stand on more solid footing as it indeed a very early innovator in the mobile OS realm.  

That said, it may face some similar prior art issues to Apple, as some of the technologies in question may have appeared in competitors' products or published in academic works.  The important thing to remember here is that the U.S. has just passed an IP reform bill, which does away with first to invent, thus rendering prior art arguments much weaker.  Still, such issues could come back to bite Microsoft in terms of image, if its rivals can clearly show it's "lifting" other companies' inventions.

Turning last to the "fairness" of the licensing, clearly Microsoft is trying to maximize its profits.  But in terms of its approach, it at least is trying to make a deal, versus Apple's approach of using IP as a club to try to beat competitors out of the market.

Thus from a variety of fundamental philosophical criteria of IP validity, Microsoft's licensing bid may not be perfect, but its better than some, certainly.  Given the fundamental strength of the IP, it should be apparent now why so many big Android firms agreed to license.

Given that many of its patents cover inventions that are today industry standards (e.g. notifications, popups, etc.) it would be very hard for Android manufacturers to modify their way out of infringement (unlike Apple's infringements, where such modifications should provide a far easier "escape route").  This is likely why many Android manufacturers simply bit the bullet and begrudgingly licensed.

It's not like Microsoft just went out and patented a GUI animation years into the smartphone game.  In Microsoft's case it filed many mobile patents in the extremely early stages of smartphone development (ca. 2000-2004) and described complex and novel systems.

That said, one crucial thing to remember is that these patents will expire.  Many are expiring within two years, and almost all will be expired within a decade.  As a result, within a decade Microsoft's license agreements with Android OEMs and ODMs will almost certainly be drastically restructured.  Remember, ten years ago Windows Mobile had just come out.  Ten years from now seems like a long time, but it really isn't that far away.

In that regard, Microsoft can revel in its licensing successes for now, but if it doesn't continue to push ahead in the mobile realm, its gains will be short-lived.

Source: TechNet



Comments     Threshold


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

What about Apple?
By mitchebk on 10/24/2011 1:00:39 PM , Rating: 3
Why isn't MS pursuing/suing Apple for the obvious violations? Anybody care to shed any light here?




RE: What about Apple?
By sprockkets on 10/24/11, Rating: -1
RE: What about Apple?
By troysavary on 10/24/2011 1:23:11 PM , Rating: 3
Apple and MS have had cross-licensing agreements for well over a decade. Apple or MS could not sue each other without violating those agreements, I imagine. Besides, MS has owned (perhaps still owns, I am not sure), shares in Apple.


RE: What about Apple?
By DandDAddict on 10/24/2011 1:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
They dropped those shares awhile ago. But youre right about the cross licensing.


RE: What about Apple?
By MikeMurphy on 10/24/2011 8:12:26 PM , Rating: 1
So MS was dreaming up these ideas but not developing anything better than WinMo?

Get stuffed, Microsoft.


RE: What about Apple?
By InfinityzeN on 10/24/2011 1:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that MS is on the strong side of that cross-licensing agreement, making cash on everything Apple spits out.


RE: What about Apple?
By InfinityzeN on 10/24/2011 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 5
Apple is already paying Microsoft a license fee to have access to their patents. In essense, MS is making money off of every device Apple sells.


RE: What about Apple?
By sprockkets on 10/25/2011 12:28:52 AM , Rating: 2
Guys that was done like 14+ years ago, when apple was near death. I'm willing to bet if they renegotiate it won't be in MS's favor.


RE: What about Apple?
By Daemyion on 10/25/2011 5:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should advise apple to renegotiate. I'm sure that since it's now advantageous for them it's simply a matter of oversight. =P


RE: What about Apple?
By Mitch101 on 10/24/2011 4:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
It says Microsoft is suing Foxconn. Foxconn is a major manufacturer for Apple products. Though It doesn't specify what products Foxconn is being sued for.


RE: What about Apple?
By B-Unit on 10/24/2011 5:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Foxconn is also a major manufacturer of many products. They dont just build iJunk.


RE: What about Apple?
By Samus on 10/25/2011 3:49:01 AM , Rating: 2
If Microsoft licenses with Foxconn, it'd be unfair for them to single out Android devices for licensing. Apple currently licenses Microsofts' IP for iOS developement, just like HTC and Samsung do for Android.

So if HTC, Samsung, and its hardware manufactures have to license, it'd be totally unfair for only Apple (and exclude its hardware manufactures) to license.

Perhaps this is why Foxconn has ignored Microsofts licensing requests. Maybe even they are confused how them developing for both platforms being licensed differently would play out?


Patent Corrections
By Theoz on 10/24/2011 2:08:35 PM , Rating: 5
Jason, general advice is to not figure patent expiration dates without assistance of a qualified practioner. US patents can be quite difficult to figure out. Since June 8, 1995 every notable country is 20 years from filing for utility patents. Some corrections where you reference an expiration date in your article:

US5579517 - Expires Nov. 26 2013
US5758352 - Expires April 1, 2013
US5664133 - Expires December 13, 2013

Also, the first-to-file change only affects patents FILED after March 16, 2013. The current law still applies to all of these patents. Thus first-to-file has no bearing on this article and you should remove the reference to the change in the law. I actually have no clue how you tie first-to-file into "rendering prior art arguments much weaker" since first-to-invent actually allows a patentee to assess prior art from an earlier date than the filing date. This generally allows for LESS prior art against a filed patent application than in a first-to-file system since the date of invention is usually earlier than the date of filing.




RE: Patent Corrections
By kitonne on 10/24/2011 4:36:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not so fast... I have US patents issued in 1995 and 1996, and I could select if I wanted them to go 17 years from date of issue or 20 years from the date of filing, as the law was changing while my patents were in process.

The 17 years from date of issue was prone to abuses - I have seen many patents delayed on purpose to extend the coverage. Basically, if you applied in 1990, you could make error corrections and clarifications for at least 4-5 years before it ever got to be approved, and if your original patent application was split by the patent office into multiple smaller patents (mine was initially split into 5 pieces, examined in sequence, by the patent examiner), by the time your last patent was issued and the counter for the 17 years started, the year could have been 2000, giving you patent protection from 1990 to 2017 (Patent Pending to Patent Expired dates). This is way longer then the 20 years used in Europe and adopted by the US about 15 years ago.

For patents issued in the 1995-1997 time frame, you need to check if they were granted under the 17 years from approval or 20 years from filing rules, as it was the transition period between the two set of rules.


RE: Patent Corrections
By Theoz on 10/24/2011 5:30:20 PM , Rating: 3
Not sure what the "not so fast" was referring to. My dates are correct.

Term calculation is complicated:
- If the application that issued into a patent (not necessarily the first filing) was filed on or after June 8, 1995 then it is 20 years from filing, even if the first filing was before June 8, 1995.
- If the application that issued into a patent (not necessarily the first filing) was filed before June 8, 1995 than it is 17 years from issue or 20 years from filing, whichever is longer.
- Complicating this fact is the use of continuation applications, continuation-in-part applications, patent term adjustment/extension, terminal disclaimers, priority years not counting on the term, etc. Like I said, complicated.

You are correct that the 20 year/17 year law was taken advantage of. Search for the number of patents filed on June 7, 1995 and you will see a massive spike. Pre-June 8, 1995 filed patents can have massive patent terms. Pre June 8, 1995 applicants would, if they had the money, just keep refiling their patent applications claiming benefit of the earlier one. If these patents were issued, if patentable, then they could still get 17 years from issue despite being first filed many many years earlier.

The delay in exam you refer to has more or less been taken care of by the patent term adjustment rules where the US patent office gives extra term if your application was unreasonably delayed.


RE: Patent Corrections
By magreen on 10/26/2011 9:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
"I actually have no clue how you tie first-to-file into 'rendering prior art arguments much weaker' since first-to-invent actually allows a patentee to assess prior art from an earlier date than the filing date."

It's quite simple. Mick has no idea what he's writing about. He clearly knows next to nothing about patent law, but that does nothing to inhibit him from spewing reams of incorrect information about it. The mistakes in his article are legion. I would list some of them, but I don't want to waste my time when he clearly is neither interested in accurate reporting nor accurate commentary.


Rambus
By Gio6518 on 10/24/2011 12:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Everytime I read a new article on Microsoft and how their doing business, I think of Rambus...




RE: Rambus
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/24/2011 1:08:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Everytime I read a new article on Microsoft and how their doing business, I think of Rambus...

Or Transmeta.

But to be fair, Microsoft, like those companies, actually invented something and patented inventions which were novel and non-obvious at their time of invention. And at least it wants to license its patents.

Lets face it, Microsoft is not suing people with flimsy IP to try to gain an anti-competitive advantage (a la Apple), rather it's simply desperate after seeing its novel, but poorly marketing products fail on the market (Windows Phone 7).

I sympathize a bit for Microsoft. It may be relying heavily on the crutch of lawsuits to generate profits, but at least it actually invented something real.

From an ethical perspective, this is at least far lower on the ladder of evils than the abusive and nonsensical lawsuit campaign Apple is crafting...

Just looking at Apple's patents versus Microsoft's ones and the time at which they were granted, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain that Microsoft's IP is more novel, more explicit, and less obvious.


Absurd!
By MeesterNid on 10/24/2011 1:17:39 PM , Rating: 1
All those patents basically illustrate the absurdity of what is patentable and expose the current system as akin to that of mob business model of racketeering.

I mean come on, one of the above patents is a freaking "Observer" design pattern as described by the GoF seminal work!




RE: Absurd!
By masamasa on 10/24/2011 4:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Well put. It's pretty much legal extortion for unoriginal ideas that should never have been patented to begin with.


RE: Absurd!
By Solandri on 10/24/2011 4:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
Well, some of them make sense. The filename patent dates back to when Microsoft had to figure out a way to map Windows long filenames to DOS 8.3 format without name collisions. That's not an easy thing to do, and I'd consider it patent-worthy. I thought memory card manufacturers already paid for that license though, since most memory cards are shipped pre-formatted with FAT or vFAT.

But others are just ridiculous. Adding an unknown number to your contact list? That's one of the first things that came to mind when using my first cell phone. "Gee, my friend just called me and he's not in my contact list yet. Since my phone knows the number he called me from, I wish there were a way for me to just glue his name to that number and add it to my contact list, instead of me having to create a new contact and enter the number manually."


RE: Absurd!
By omnicronx on 10/24/2011 5:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Everything is obvious in hindsight right?

A lot of the patents in question are non obvious. I find that many GUI elements (like those described here) have no place being patented, but MS certainly does have some patents that hold some merit and certainly should be patentable.

Its also not really MS's fault that things like FAT became the defacto standard. Linux adopted FAT, it was not imposed on them in any way or form. (now clearly because MS was the standard, you are going to want to use drivse that can be read in multiple devices, but obvious and 'non patentable' it is not.) The patent in question and its implementation was specifically designed for windows backwards compatibility for their own filesystem. Why on earth should they not be able to protect their IP, when they designed and created it, and forced nobody to use it?

Anyone is free to modify something like this and use their own implementation. (A workaround had already been submitted for the linux kernel involving only storing long or short filenames and not both which is what the patent covers)


Fair play?
By redtalon123 on 10/24/2011 1:19:44 PM , Rating: 1
Have to say, this is a very biased, pro Google article.

Reason MS is sueing Android, is because MS has been in the Smart phone business over 10 years and like it or not, Android has copied them without permission.

Hence why 50% of all Android makers are now paying MS without a court battle, because it is plainly obvious to them. Only one company currently is going to court which happens to be the one owned by Google.

As far as WP7 being a failure, 1 year on WP7 has sold more phones than Android did in its first year....




RE: Fair play?
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/24/2011 1:37:35 PM , Rating: 5
Sigh. You obviously did not read this piece very carefully, particularly my conclusions, which I think would be the most important aspect of determining what my analysis summary was.

quote:
Reason MS is sueing Android, is because MS has been in the Smart phone business over 10 years and like it or not, Android has copied them without permission.

The article:
quote:
The utility covered in this patent is the adding of a contact, via your call history. Again, both Android and Apple appear to be in clear violation of this patent....

quote:
It's not like Microsoft just went out and patented a GUI animation years into the smartphone game. In Microsoft's case it filed many mobile patents in the extremely early stages of smartphone development (ca. 2000-2004) and described complex and novel systems.

As for....
quote:
As far as WP7 being a failure, 1 year on WP7 has sold more phones than Android did in its first year....

Sure, but consider Android had far less handsets on the market @ launch than WP7 when it was posting lower sales. At the end of day, thus far WP7 has been a sales failure. Even Microsoft's CEO admits that in so many words.

I honestly think Microsoft did a great job designing their new product. It's very novel and every piece practically I've ever written on WP7 I've praised the creative interface design. I'd definitely consider a WP7 handset for my next phone.

But the facts are right now WP7 is not a sales success, no matter how much we like it. To say otherwise is disingenuous.

As for the rest of your conclusions, I agree with you, for the most part, and if you'd bother to read the article you'd have realized that.


By masamasa on 10/24/2011 4:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
...shows just how much of a joke the patent system is.

Pathetic.




By amanojaku on 10/24/2011 7:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
At the time these patents were filed there were actually quite advanced. Remember, in 1991 we were still using Windows 3.x and MacOS 6.x or 7.x. The big issue is the duration of the patents: 20 years. No one could have expected that in 2011 software would have evolved to the point that these patents would be utter nonsense, the stuff taught in 101 classes.

The patents are valid, but MS is kinda being a douche about enforcing them.


By amanojaku on 10/24/2011 7:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
I should have been more clear about the dates on which the patents were filed. I did not mean to say there were filed in 1991; many were filed as recently as 2006. Personally, I think the patent length should be justified by the creator, and should reflect the amount of time it took to be created, minus interruptions like work, lack of funds, etc... People should be allowed to challenge the patent duration provided they can make a good case. This way, creators can't say it took 10 years to make something like an "add contact to address book" feature, when someone else shows it could have been developed in a few days or weeks, minus bug testing. The patent would then be valid for 3-5 years or something. On the other hand, a full-blown OS (PC or mobile) would have 5 years or so of development, and its patents would be valid for 10-20 years or something. Again, all patent durations must be capable of being challenged.


???? Patents?????
By spkay on 10/24/2011 2:55:34 PM , Rating: 2
These "Patents" are so retarded (yes they deserve that description) that at just goes to show how rediculous the patent law system is in the USA (not that's it's better outside the US). Some of these patents read like they were granted only on the grounds of the deep pockets of the applicants organizations and the corrupt Judge's overseeing the entire process. I believe patents are a viable option for protecting IP rights but the vast majority of patents are a pile of worthless jibberish. I own the patent on a smartphone since my patent's novelty description includes 'small enough to fit in a shirt pocket' and 'communicates digital information with no wires'. I'm suprised Frank Purdue wasn't granted a patent on 'chicken for roasting small enough to fit in a standard sized oven'.




Hmm..
By koenshaku on 10/25/2011 12:05:23 PM , Rating: 2
I thought MS I thought I recall reading an article saying android used a linux kernal which infringed on a MS patent and FAT32 or something like that...




Since you brought it up Microsoft
By sprockkets on 10/24/11, Rating: 0
A full story my ass
By lukarak on 10/24/11, Rating: -1
RE: A full story my ass
By koenshaku on 10/25/2011 12:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
What is the other side of the story? Google knew they were in violation of several patents that is why they released the OS for free to avoid being sued themselves, all the while harvesting peoples information to sell ads and increase their web services market share at the same time? Why sir I think you're correct :p


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














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