backtop


Print 14 comment(s) - last by Strunf.. on Mar 31 at 8:23 AM

Microsoft said it will share some of its intellectual property related to the Xbox gaming system as well

Microsoft and Dell have penned a patent licensing agreement regarding devices running Android and Chrome OS

According to Microsoft, Dell agreed to pay royalties to Microsoft for sales of devices that run either Google's mobile Android operating system or Chrome OS. 

Microsoft is going head-to-head with Google to make sure that Android hardware makers -- which build Android smartphones that Microsoft believes may infringe its patents -- pay Microsoft a license fee. These patents then protect the hardware makers from litigation related to both operating systems. In the meantime, Microsoft wins because it can pocket some extra cash.


[SOURCE: Maximum PC]
 

Dell isn't the only hardware manufacturer paying Microsoft for Android or Chrome OS royalties. Most of the larger handset makers, such as Samsung, LG and HTC, have already agreed to pay Microsoft royalties. 

In addition to Android and Chrome OS, Microsoft said it will share some of its intellectual property related to the Xbox gaming system as well. 

“Our agreement with Dell shows what can be accomplished when companies share intellectual property,” said Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of the Innovation and Intellectual Property Group at Microsoft. “We have been partnering with technology manufacturers and vendors for many years to craft licensing deals, instead of litigation strategies.” 

In 2012, Microsoft said 70 percent of Android phones sold in the U.S. were covered by one of its licensing agreements.

Source: Microsoft



Comments     Threshold


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

Extortion
By ResStellarum on 3/27/2014 8:34:55 PM , Rating: 2
Extortion 101. Microsoft is no different to the Mafia. Not content with a monopoly on desktop PC's, it wants to tax the competition out of laptop, tablet, and phone space. All through dubious, overly broad, decade old patents.

Ignoring the fact that software patents shouldn't exist to begin with, Microsoft's clearly abusing its stockpile to give an advantage to its ailing Windows Phone and 8 OS'. Next on the horizon will be Microsoft giving away its phone OS for free to OEM's, all the while taxing anyone producing Android devices. If that's not a case of antitrust I don't know what is.




RE: Extortion
By coburn_c on 3/27/2014 10:09:33 PM , Rating: 1
Now if you've ever used Windows CE, you'd know Microsoft actually legitimately came first in the modern mobile OS segment. If they were trying were trying to give their products an advantage they'd probably have a big noisy lawsuit and try to halt imports, instead they pretty quietly licensed their tech..

I think your comment could be consider an angry tirade and it shines more light on your bias than your subject.


RE: Extortion
By Penti on 3/29/2014 7:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
Not really first, there were others. They were fairly early though and was part of the touch craze of the early 90's.


RE: Extortion
By w8gaming on 3/27/2014 11:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
With the mess of software patent it is in right now, the only surprising thing is that how come Android is always on the receiving end of the licensing deal? It is hard to believe Microsoft and Apple do not violate any software patent from Google or any Android vendors who have software patents of their own, especially any obscure patent could have been used to bring down other vendor product which has thousands of other features that are completely non-violating.


RE: Extortion
By Nagorak on 3/28/2014 1:22:04 AM , Rating: 3
It's not really that surprising. Google is a relative newcomer to the OS market. Microsoft and Apple have been making OSes for years and filing relevant patents. Google's claim to fame was as a search engine. It just doesn't have much of a patent war chest when it comes to mobile OSes.


RE: Extortion
By Reclaimer77 on 3/28/2014 4:20:45 PM , Rating: 1
When a company needs to have a "patent war chest" to enter a market, that's when you KNOW that market is fucked up.


RE: Extortion
By Strunf on 3/31/2014 8:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly patents should have a much shorter life span, I understand they are needed to allow companies to recover some of the R&D costs but today their primary goal is to stop others from entering the market or to make it costly for them. Patents in shapes or functionality should last for 2 or 3 years max, on technology that is more elaborated like protocols a few extra years and others 10 years at most.

I think making the validity of the patent be proportional to the time it took to develop it would be a good start, maybe multiply it by 4 to a maximum of 10 years.


RE: Extortion
By Nagorak on 3/28/2014 1:19:41 AM , Rating: 2
They're a company and they're in business to make money. If their patents hold up, then of course they'll get people to license them. Whether the patent system needs to be overhauled is a separate issue. For now you can't really blame M$ for making money where they can.

Personally, my only issue was with some of Apple's ridiculous design patents, such as on the shape of a square phone with rounded corners. That truly was ridiculous.


RE: Extortion
By atechfan on 3/28/2014 3:29:00 PM , Rating: 2
If these were not legitimate patents, then people would not be so willing to pay royalties when asked. They would dispute it. Since many companies are paying, there must be substance to these patents. Just because Google has no respect for intellectual property doesn't mean the companies that they are stealing from have to just take it.


RE: Extortion
By bsd228 on 3/28/2014 3:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If these were not legitimate patents, then people would not be so willing to pay royalties when asked. They would dispute it. Since many companies are paying, there must be substance to these patents. Just because Google has no respect for intellectual property doesn't mean the companies that they are stealing from have to just take it.


The substance is marginal. The irony, more from a moral perspective than a legal one, is that MS helped itself to a crapload of freely available unix code that was freely available, but doesn't want to return the favor.


RE: Extortion
By p05esto on 3/29/2014 10:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
I dislike comments like yours. If MS invented the tech then they have a right to be paid for it as long as legally possible. Are you a communist? That kind of talk about how MS shouldn't be able to collect on their R&D is sick man, sick!


License for what?
By Mr Perfect on 3/28/2014 12:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
What are they paying licensing fees on? Is this FAT32 again?




RE: License for what?
By Penti on 3/29/2014 7:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
They are among other things, you also have to pay to use exFAT even though it's part of the SD-card standard with SDXC through the SD Association-body. They don't even offer it on a FRAND basis. Both an Android phone can do without though, files can be transfered through MTP. Many also signs up to be able to use stuff like EAS (Activesync) and other stuff. If Microsoft truly want to extort on technical or technologies used they should only charge for what companies want to use or actually use rather than trying to make more money on any device not coming from Microsoft/Nokia than their own devices.


Lawyers
By squito on 3/30/2014 8:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
Founded by (the son of) lawyers - kept in business by lawyers - move along, nothing to see here




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles













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