backtop


Print 19 comment(s) - last by MadMan007.. on Dec 25 at 1:45 PM

Ruling could "gimp" Motorola's Android calendar application

Motorola Mobility -- a new subsidiary of Google Inc. (GOOG), pending some final approvals in certain regions (e.g. the European Union) -- is one of the few Android phonemakers to stand up and fight against Microsoft's licensing demands.  Google has waged a highly public battle against Microsoft's patent licensing demands, which could force it to pay $15 or more per device.

The first phase of Motorola/Google's battle with Microsoft has wrapped up with a very small victory for Microsoft Corp. (MSFT).

The administrative law judge (ALJ) presiding over the case at the U.S. International Trade Commission dismissed six of Microsoft's seven infringement claims.  The sole claim confirmed comes in the form of U.S. Patent 6,370,566, which claims the invention of "the ability to schedule a meeting request from the mobile device itself".  The patent goes on to describe a special data field that identifies whether a request has already been transmitted.  Rebroadcast events change this flag, allowing duplicates to be quickly filtered out and ignored.

Android meetings
The infringing feature in Android... [Image Source: Microsoft via Engadget]

(Read here for a full description of the patents Microsoft used in the case, with informative pictures showing where some of them pop up in Android features.)

Now for phonemakers like HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) and Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930), who already license from Microsoft [1][2], this ruling does not significantly effect them.  But for for Google and Motorola the situation gets interesting as they must figure out a way to preserve meeting scheduling -- a critical smartphone functionality -- whilst escaping infringment of the Microsoft IP.

In other words, the situation could be far worse for Motorola, but the ruling could still be  a blow to the quality of Motorola's Android distribution, forcing it to either license or remove a key feature.

Microsoft's General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Brad Smith first broke the news of Microsoft's victory on Twitter, writing:

ITC finds Motorola #patent infringment in #Microsoft case. Another indication that licensing is the best path for the industry.

Motorola/Google and Microsoft will meet again in court on April 20, 2012 when a full ITC panel will deliver its final determination on the infringement claims. Motorola/ Google currently have a counter-complaint filed against Microsoft.  Writes Motorola in a press release:

Microsoft continues to infringe Motorola Mobility’s substantial patent portfolio and Motorola Mobility has active patent infringement litigation and proceedings against Microsoft in a number of jurisdictions, including the ITC. Motorola Mobility remains confident in its position and will continue to move forward with its complaints.

Reportedly, Microsoft now makes more money off of licensing its patents to Android phonemakers than it does selling operating system licenses for its own Windows Phone smartphones.

Sources: Brad Smith (Twitter), Motorola, Google Patents



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Legit
By a5cent on 12/21/2011 5:51:16 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, there is more to it than simply setting a calender event. However, there really isn't anything non trivial going on here. Many 12 year old nerds could envision such a system. It's ridiculously simple when compared to something like compression algorithms or visual recognition systems. From my perspective, if MS can patent this, then I should be able to patent the way I make my bed each morning and sue everyone that does it similarly. I really don't see any significant difference. There is nothing worthy of the term "invention" in this patent.


RE: Legit
By borismkv on 12/21/2011 7:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the world of software patents. The whole system is a pile a manure.


RE: Legit
By aromero78 on 12/22/2011 9:21:12 AM , Rating: 3
You are infringing on my smart ass remark patent. You will be receiving a letter from my legal team.


RE: Legit
By NellyFromMA on 12/22/2011 12:52:00 PM , Rating: 1
Envisioning a system has nothing to do with implementing one. I can envision quite a bit, that doesn't mean a single thing.........

In the real world, you come up with a concept, try it, figure out what did and didn't work, and work to get it where you want it to be. Bug fixing and such. When you have a working system that actually took time effort and resources, you go patent that system.

Why? Well, because you just did all that work, that's why...

It takes more than a 12 year old going "wow, seems simple".


RE: Legit
By MadMan007 on 12/25/2011 1:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
By your logic then specific implementations should be patentable and I agree. The problem with software patents is that general methods or ideas - the end result - are too easily patentable, not specific implementations or what you call a 'working system'.

We could see real improvements if specific implementations were the only thing patentable. That would create incentives to optimize code and 'build a beter mouse trap' rather than the current system where software patents are ideas not specific implementations.


RE: Legit
By fic2 on 12/22/2011 2:30:51 PM , Rating: 2
Glad I don't make my bed every morning. Hate to be sued for that.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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