Source: Prior Smart
quote: I agree, MS isn't clean in this, but the reality is that I can't say any of these companies are clean. They have all shown themselves to be less than kind over the years.
quote: As far as not showing the patents, it seems reasonable that if those patents cover confidential information, that MS would not just make that public.
quote: It's not FUD in the slightest.1. If you sell a device then you are liable for any patents that device infringes. (any disagreement so far?)2. If some part of that device comes from elsewhere then you are still liable because you are the one manufacturing and selling it. (still with me?)3. Microsoft agrees to indemnify anyone who is sued because of a part (the OS) that they supplied. (is this the part that is BS?)4. Google does not. (am I lying yet?)Explain to me which part is FUD?
quote: MS wouldn't tell the companies they were threatening what patents they were suing for until after they agreed to settle.
quote: "The suit alleges Microsoft "stole" the concept Live Tiles, which the plaintiffs claim they invented in 2000 and receive a patent for in 2004, with U.S. Patent 6,724,403."
quote: Microsoft appears to have known for some time about SurfStar's IP, so this suit shouldn't come as a big surprise. The electronics giant in 2005 tried to patent Live Tiles with U.S. Patent 7,933,632. The patent was finally granted in 2011, but only after Microsoft cited SurfStar's "relevant prior art".