Foxconn must pay Microsoft for EVERY Android thing it makes Microsoft will collect a royalty for every device built by Foxconn that runs Google operating systems Android or Chrome OS. Hon Hai, the parent of the Chinese electronics behemoth, confirmed today it has inked a deal to license unspecified Microsoft patents on smartphones, tablets and TVs built by Foxconn that use Google's …
"But charging the people that make your current (and future?) Xbox, is that a good idea?"
Here's what would be funny: If Samsung started price-gouging both Apple and Microsoft, and they both took their business to a different manufacturer, who would be guaranteed enough business that this new manufacturer would undertake a massive expansion in order to meet Apple's and Microsoft's requirements - thereby netting Samsung both reduced income and a serious new competitor!
Presumably Microsoft's thinking is that now they can go to all the people that don't make the current or future Xbox and say 'Foxconn are paying and they've got enough money for really good lawyers; why don't you just pay up and save us all some hassle?'
Even supposing Microsofts ends up paying its own royalties via Foxconn, that's a good piece of leverage over everybody else to have acquired for free.
This is exactly why it's just not possible to kick microsoft enough.
Its not enough that no-one wants their comedy new desktop OS - kick em now whilst they are down.
Its not enough that they can't shift as many of their pathetic phones in a quarter as Android activates in a day - kick em again even when they stop moving.
And its certainly not enough no-one even realises they have a tablet out - it's impact has been that minimal the needle didn't budge. Just read this story, and kick 'em again. And again.
And again - we don't want any chance of them coming back.
Rumor has it that all of these deals Microsoft has signed with device vendors involve patents on the FAT filesystem and later derivatives.
Presumably, Microsoft is not releasing this information because it wants the idea out there in the public consciousness that "Microsoft invented the technologies that Android uses." Also, by keeping the terms of its deal with one company vague, it can presumably negotiate a more favorable deal with the next company it goes after.
@Neil McAllister
What everyone else should do is just use a different file-system and let Microsoft keep FAT. When Windows users need to install a driver, so be it. What everyone else should do, create a new file-system and let any "partner" use it for free and non-partners can license it. Then they never ever let Microsoft become a partner so that they will need to license it. It is time to trim the FAT.
@AC Yes but they want their devices to work straight away, i.e plugin to a PC, MAC, Linux machine and have a readily available disc.
There are already plenty of other file systems about, I suppose the problem is trying to get OS's not designed for it to behave.
The asserted patents are known and are referenced here: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2011111122291296 refer exhibit D
IMHO the patents would not withstand a legal challenge, perhaps a good reason why MS have tried to keep specific details away from the public where it would face broader analysis and discussion.
> IMHO the patents would not withstand a legal challenge, perhaps a good reason why MS have tried to keep specific details away from the public where it would face broader analysis and discussion.
Even more likely, "You sign a patent license deal and we will sweeten the xbox contract."
The aim is to to set precedents.for licensing and to keep alive the illusion of risk associated with android.
They're obligated to disclose them to the infringers or face the prospect that they can't enforce on that group of infringers. Laches takes place at this point because they've been playing this game for 5+ years and not told the AOSS or Linux communities what's actually infringing only that we are. Clearly not legit.
The companies, so long as they're participants in full of those said communities, they've effectively got a Laches case and don't need to sign the NDA OR any agreements. I'm strongly suspecting B&N's legal team saw this and it's part of why they told MS to go pound sand.
Actually no, at least not according to other coverage of this issue. The same patents will only be licensed once for each device. If both FoxConn and its client have signed a licensing deal with Microsoft, it is up to them to decide who pays, but Microsoft only gets paid once.
Ok, it's royalties, Google knew when they purchased Android that it had seriously questionable IP, if agree with the system or not, they still knew what they were getting into. They then chose to give away the OS for free, so MS are rightly claiming royalties for the technologies they developed. In fact they are required to recoup royalties by law, because they would loose the IP if they didn't and they're required to make maximum profit for their shareholders.
That no credible company has tried to take them to court suggests that they have something valid. I'd like to know what it is, you'd like to know what, but actually they don't have to tell us, we could go through all the patents assigned to MS, but frankly, I can't be arsed.
Where to start.
> ... it had seriously questionable IP
Does it? What IP would you be referring to? Or does your NDA stop you discussing it?
> ... MS are rightly claiming royalties for the technologies they developed
Really? Like to tell us all what this technology is?
> ... That no credible company has tried to take them to court suggests that they have something valid.
No it doesn't. It suggests it's cheaper and less painful to give in.
> ... , but actually they don't have to tell us,
And there is the crux of the problem. I notice they're still not going after the source of the "infringement".
> ... frankly, I can't be arsed.
That much was evident.
"> ... it had seriously questionable IP
Does it? What IP would you be referring to? Or does your NDA stop you discussing it?"
The fact that there have been 19 publicly-announced royalty-bearing agreements between Android handset manufacturers and Microsoft (and other IP holders) to this point should be very obvious proof that Android has extremely serious IP issues.
"> ... MS are rightly claiming royalties for the technologies they developed
Really? Like to tell us all what this technology is?"
Why do you need to know? That the lawyers for the Andriod handset manufacturers know, is all that really matters.
"> ... That no credible company has tried to take them to court suggests that they have something valid.
No it doesn't. It suggests it's cheaper and less painful to give in."
Have you got ANY evidence to back that up? Like, let's say, the cost of mounting a defense and the amount of money that any of these Android handset manufacturers can be expected to pay in royalties under the terms of these agreements? Also, there are at least some jurisdictions where the loser has to pay the winner's legal fees.
"> ... , but actually they don't have to tell us,
And there is the crux of the problem. I notice they're still not going after the source of the "infringement"."
You seem to mistake, "I want to know" for "they have a legal obligation to let me know"
And as for "not going after the source of the infringement", if this is how their lawyers have decided to do it, then that's how they decided to do it.
And notice that Google is not exactly rushing to intervene in these lawsuits on the Android handset manufacturers' behalf, and they haven't exactly offered to indemnify them against any judgements or awards, or even (as far as I know) to help pay their legal costs.
> very obvious proof that Android has extremely serious IP issues.
No, it s obvious proof that the US has serious Patent Office problems. The PO will pas just about any application because that way they get to collect the fees and not have to worry about any consequence.
The result is lots of lawyers making lots of money while businesses and courts, and ultimately consumers and taxpayers, pay the costs.
If a patent is put up for review then the PO collects another set of fees. This is inspite of prior art or the patent just being an 'idea'.
"The fact that there have been 19 publicly-announced royalty-bearing agreements between Android handset manufacturers and Microsoft (and other IP holders) to this point should be very obvious proof that Android has extremely serious IP issues."
No, it's just proof that it's cheaper to pay Microsoft to go away than to spend years in court getting questionable patents invalidated (and the one does not prevent the latter. There have been several cases where royalties paid on patents have been clawed back when the patents were invalidated - a thought which must have MS shitting housebricks)
The fact that MS turned tail when B&N not only stood up to them, but published the list of alleged patents says more about their true view of those patents than any agreements entered into (and now those patents are in the open, it's easier to pick them apart)
Court cases of this kind are mostly about who has deeper pockets and greater determination. The usual pattern is to shake down the smaller players first, then to use the monies gained to finance going after bigger fish - which works until the fish in question turns out to have a formidable set of offences and defences as well as a serious toxin load.
Note well that MS are not going directly after Google - if they did that the game would be up very quickly.
"That no credible company has tried to take them to court "
Either you are trolling or just oblivious to the fact that Barnes and Noble took them to court and looked in a very strong position. No one knows the results of the deal but many with a little bit of knowledge (that excludes from maybe Information Week) feel like Microsoft backed down and essentially gave a barter deal to Barnes and Noble that they couldn't refuse.
The fact that Microsoft didn't decide to take it through to trial and get their bumper payday including possibly triple damages shows that they have reservations about their IP if it was to come under judicial scrutiny. However the snippets release from the case show that there is nothing credible and they are trying something close to extortion.
If it was genuine IP they wouldn't be doing hush-hush deals, with restrictions discussing anything about what patents they are asserting and going after defendants on a company-by-company basis.
If they really believed they had proper IP that needed to be protected why not do a public lciensing program that is fully transparent and request payments from everyone at one - oh because the last company that tried that (although still not transparent) was SCO. Look where that got them.
> That no credible company has tried to take them to court suggests that they have something valid.
Microsoft tried to shake down B&N for royalties on these patents. B&N refused to sign the NDA and then published to alleged patents. Instead of going to court over this MS paid $300million for an alleged 'partnership'.
One conclusion is that MS did not want to go to court and lose the patents.
If the patents were any good Microsoft would publish them; what they've done is blackmail Foxconn by threatening to tie them up for years in litigation for years.
This is a classic example of how these mediaeval instruments work to stifle innovation - companies that are small simply can't fight the court cases while the big established companies just write a cheque rather than challenge the ludicrous claims (Microsoft invented something? Don't make me laugh).
Just fucking scrap patents already.
The patents are all a matter of public record, it's just that we don't know which ones specifically are being claimed on here.
Scrapping patents would be the worst move a modern society could make - software patents maybe, but general patents are required for business and development. Why would I spend a ton of money developing a gizmo that anyone could copy and make themselves?
> Scrapping patents would be the worst move a modern society could make
Nonsense -- The fashion industry has effectively no protection for its designs, other than trademark, and yet it exists, and innovates strongly, and turns over vast amounts more than most of the sectors with strong protection:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html
True that. But perhaps scrapping the current system is a good idea.
I bet there is one non-patent related to what Microsoft thinks could be an infringement in there and they sold the bundle for 1USD. Thereby making a mockery of the industry. Farkin MS. I was beginning to think that they were in their place and began to open up a bit to using their software. After stunts like this, I'll spit in your face if say the M word. Don't say it.
Robert Long1
"This is a classic example of how these mediaeval instruments work to stifle innovation - companies that are small simply can't fight the court cases while the big established companies just write a cheque rather than challenge the ludicrous claims (Microsoft invented something? Don't make me laugh)."
I was under the impression that Google was a sizeable company with money in the bank. It could afford to fight these claims, but it hasn't. You can't blame Microsoft for that.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
