
Microsoft sells patents to Xiaomi - whitef0x
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-xiaomi-idUSKCN0YN2VM
======
pawadu
I think in 2-4 years, xiaomi will be a market leader. I believe this for three
reasons:

1\. the Chineese government got their backs. (e.g. foreign competitors have
been forced to agree to not sue these guys to get their mergers approved)

2\. they make long term strategic decisions. xiaomi is owned by the employees
and don't have any short-sighted shareholders to please

3\. their engineering and manufacturing teams have a very efficient iterative
workflow. many other companies ship a product and move on to the next but
xiaomi updates and improves their products every four weeks (eight ?).

~~~
li-ch
No they will not.

1\. Chinese Gov has Huawei's back, not Xiaomi.

2\. Their decision to make their OS to show crazy amount of ads is really
short sighted.

3\. They are falling dangerously behind Huawei in both sales and quality of
product.

~~~
partiallypro
> 1\. Chinese Gov has Huawei's back, not Xiaomi.

The Chinese government backs several companies in the same industry, there's
no reason to believe they don't have both company's backs

>2\. Their decision to make their OS to show crazy amount of ads is really
short sighted.

This must be a Chinese mainland thing, I've never seen this on any of their
devices.

> 3\. They are falling dangerously behind Huawei in both sales and quality of
> product.

I don't think so, I find the Xiaomi products to be very inticing and well
built for the price. In the new era of smartphones where people will no longer
be willing to shell out big bucks and subsidies of smart phones from providers
are faltering (or just ending.) Companies like Xiaomi stand to gain.

~~~
MasterScrat
> I don't think so, I find the Xiaomi products to be very inticing and well
> built for the price.

Have you ever used actually used a Xiaomi product for some time? Sure they are
cheap and look ok but they are so unreliable it gets unbearable after a few
months.

~~~
howlingfantods
I have: Xiaomi speakers, plugs, air purifier, water quality tester, water
purifier, router, backpack, portable charger, fitness tracker, lightbulb, etc.

They all work very well, and are exceptional quality, considering their price.

~~~
webkike
And yet you don't own one of their smartphones.

------
Aissen
So, Xiaomi is getting the last pieces it needs to move into European markets.
If it comes here (which has begun already), it has to play the patent game.
Expect a $60+ markup on high end phones for that (industry sources).

(old source: [http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/400-smartphone-
pay-120-p...](http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/400-smartphone-
pay-120-patent-royalties-research-claims/))

Now they just need to solve their cash flow issues to fuel this growth…

~~~
ocean3
Lower end mobiles don't need to pay? There are many mobiles under 60 at least
in India.

~~~
RealityVoid
Well, that's not really an European market, is it?

------
nitin_flanker
Acquisition of patent is one of the top priority of Xiaomi at this stage when
it's trying to expand itself globally. I believe Hugo Barra is doing an
excellent work here. The acquisition of Microsoft patent gonna open the door
of the US smartphone market for Xiaomi. As per this report --
[http://www.greyb.com/patent-portfolio-analysis-of-xiaomi-
glo...](http://www.greyb.com/patent-portfolio-analysis-of-xiaomi-global-
expansion-plan/) \-- one of the biggest hurdle is Xaiomi's miniscule patent
portfolio in the US. In the past they acquired patents from Broadcom in the
US. Still they had only 220 patents there and now with these 1500, they are
going to have like 1700.

~~~
ptaipale
It is kind of sad that the power of innovation is not really in making
something that is new and customers want to buy; even entering the market
means you need to possess a portfolio where you count the patents by hundreds
or thousands, and then you hire lawyers to negotiate a balance scale where
each side throws a portfolio in the cup.

~~~
bkor
It is telling two things: 1) The ability to compete and cost associated to
compete is worse in US and Europe. 2) Further, patents are mostly used as anti
competitive behaviour; it is not related to "innovation", nor is it related to
research and development.

~~~
jb613
> patents are mostly used as anti competitive behaviour; it is not related to
> "innovation", nor is it related to research and development.

Generally, patents are derived from R&D which is where innovation directly
comes from so it is "related". At the very least this is true in Microsoft's
case.

Regarding anti-competitive - it's only anti-competitive if someone else
attempts to COPY the innovation. They are free to innovate and come up with an
ALTERNATIVE. The more alternatives, the more choices for consumers. If you
want to copy then sure - patents block, but if you want to innovate then
patents can provide incentivizes to carry that out.

~~~
dagw
_They are free to innovate and come up with an ALTERNATIVE._

Except in practice you aren't. Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any
independent solution to a problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent. And
even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a couple of
years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to prove that.

~~~
jb613
> Most pantens are so vaguely worded that any independent solution to a
> problem can be claimed to infringe on a patent.

No longer true, over the past ~decade, quality of patents issued has
dramatically improved. Most patents are actually very narrow. Just look at the
sheer quantity that are issuing (in software in particular) - everyone is
coming up with something different.

> And even if you don't actually infringe on the patent, you better have a
> couple of years and a few $100k-$millions to dedicate to the court battle to
> prove that.

Or before recklessly entering a market, evaluate the landscape. Do you have
something new to offer, can you yourself protect your innovations, narrow down
your product scope to minimize encroachment on others property, etc...

Think less about building the whole kitchen sink and more on being the best at
some tiny improvement (texture of the handles, connectors to the pipe to
minimize leakage, etc...). Think writing the perfect 50 LOC that others would
want to use rather than building 50k LOC. The less code you ship, the more
you've minimized your patent infringement risk (along with proper evaluation
of competitors protect at the outset). Additionally, if you've found that 50
LOC that nobody does yet and others want to use, then you've likely also found
something valuable to patent yourself. BECOME the innovator rather than sued
by the innovator.

Business requires managing risks, patents are but a small factor if properly
handled.

~~~
nickpsecurity
There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some way.
They each have multiple claims. What you suggest is impossible. It's why both
large players and startups just do whatever they want, attempt to pile up
patents, and then let lawyers fight it out. Unfortunately, that works better
for the bigger players.

Plus, the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined
in any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of
millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto. Something that was
invented before their patents. Their others say mix crypto with (service
here), which isn't original either. People mixed crypto with all sorts of
things. Adding it to something is a feature of crypto, not an invention.
Specific mechanism maybe, but not concept.

Stuff like that is still normal in the patent suits. The suits are too
expensive. So, most companies settle to loose good chunk of money. There's
quite a few businesses with good products that refused to do business in U.S.
specifically because of this. They operate in Asia. That Xiamoi's lawyers told
management to not enter America with common products unless they had a pile of
patents is telling.

~~~
jb613
> the number of vague or obvious patents in enforcement has not declined in
> any serious way. We have a recent example with Virnetx pulling hundreds of
> millions out of Apple et al for using end-to-end crypto.

Couple of things seriously wrong in this statement alone:

1) I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto". If
you are going to broadly describe something rather complex in 4 words then I
would suggest "Apple’s VPN on demand function" as a better example. Similar
#num of words yet suddenly significantly narrower isn't it. However, even that
doesn't scratch the surface, looking at the titles of the patents in trial
provides a better glimpse that this is more than just simply "end-to-end
crypto":

6,502,135 - Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured
system availability

7,418,504 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure
domain names

7,490,151 - Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain
name service (DNS) request

7,921,211 - Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure
domain names

Are you starting to understand that this isn't merely "end-to-end crypto" or
do we need to go into the Claims and how to properly begin to evaluate patent
property boundaries?

2) I don't have the time to replay the entire infringement trial, but it seems
to me you believe this trial was unjust or resulted in an improper outcome. I
highly doubt that Apple had incompetent lawyers or did not have enough
resources. The court and jury disagrees with your assessment.

> Unfortunately, that works better for the bigger players.

Measured by market cap, Apple is the worlds biggest corporation. VirnetX is
not small, not tiny, but rather miniscule in comparison. Is this is fight
between 2 big players? No. Did the bigger player win? No.

> There's allegedly over 200,000 patents that can cover smartphones in some
> way.

Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the
kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small
innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of
tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC - not re-
invent 500k LOC. For now, the only pitfall is that larger players still
believe they are better off to fight later in court rather than license now
from the inventor when they find a new innovation. Blackberry learned 10 years
ago, maybe Apple will learn today, and hopefully others will learn from their
lessons.

Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success.

~~~
nickpsecurity
" I seriously doubt you can describe the patents as "end-to-end crypto""

It doesn't matter what you describe them as. What matters is what you can
enforce them on. It's clever that you focus on VPN while ignoring product
pertinent to this conversation: iMessage. Virnetx not only thinks they deserve
credit for any end-to-end messaging app but also wants to shut them down.

[http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-
apple/](http://btlj.org/2016/04/patent-privateering-virnetx-v-apple/)

[http://www.medianama.com/2016/05/223-now-virnetx-wants-
apple...](http://www.medianama.com/2016/05/223-now-virnetx-wants-apple-to-
block-facetime-and-imessage-patent-trolls/)

Not just Apple's. They're going after any big company that's doing end-to-end
encryption plus has money. They're also asking products to be taken off the
market. Nobody used their patents or invention to build their products. The
state-of-the-art in this space is way ahead of Virnetx's paltry offering that
nobody wants. The only results of patents here are (a) anti-competitive
behavior, (b) leeching off successful companies, and (c) probably helping NSA
defeat widespread crypto easier via BULLRUN program and their partners at
SAIC.

"Proves my point in previous post - small players don't have to re-invent the
kitchen sink (in this case smartphones) but rather should focus on some small
innovation (e.g. a VPN on demand feature - except translate to something of
tomorrow - these patents are from 10-15 years ago). Find that 50 LOC"

What are you talking about? You can't sell 50LOC: you have to have whatever is
standard or nobody will buy it. That's easy without patent enforcement in
effect. Just build it, deploy it, and get first-mover advantage. Now, let's
test your little theory on VOIP which Vodaphone has a patent on. How do you
create a voice over IP product without infringing a patent that claims to
cover any transmission of voice over any data channel? And in courts that rule
in favor of patent-holder almost 100% of the time?

Good luck.

"Patents enable the small player to innovate and find success."

Most patents are filed by (a) big companies that sue small players for
infringement or (b) Universities that sell patents to big companies that sue
small players for infringement. The smaller companies, independent or academic
spinoffs, often get acquired by big players that then sue small players for
infringement. The big companies also hit outrageous profit margins due to lack
of competition. Most studies of effect on patent system shows this to be the
case.

Your claim about small businesses is a legend. That is, it's mostly a myth but
with occasionally success stories to give it what little truth it has. Patents
don't create innovation: corporate competition and often, government-funded
research create most innovation. Patents then just restrict competition and
drive prices up.

~~~
jb613
> "It doesn't matter what you describe them as."

When you're using it as you did to try to make the point that the patents were
overly broad - then of course it matters!

> "but also wants to shut them down"

It's called leverage - the small player needs to gain leverage to affect a
better outcome. Both sides do it, don't kid yourself.

> "Nobody used their patents or invention to build their products."

When you're not researching others prior art then you're reinventing the
wheel. Not optimally efficient.

> "What are you talking about? You can't sell 50LOC"

Oh yes you can.

> "How do you create a voice over IP product without infringing a patent that
> claims to cover any transmission of voice over any data channel?"

Again, you are (deliberately?) representing patents as overly broad. I just
showed you that the others patents were not as broadly covering ALL "end-to-
end crypto" but yet you continue with these insane notions?

> "Most patents are filed by (a) big companies that sue small players for
> infringement or (b) Universities that sell patents to big companies that sue
> small players for infringement."

That's not addressing my point. I said patents enable small players to
innovate and find success - your point about who's filing more does nothing to
address my point. ...in fact:

> "The smaller companies, independent or academic spinoffs, often get acquired
> by big players"

further directly proves my point. The smaller players were able to find
success - as you said by being acquired.

> "Most studies of effect on patent system shows this to be the case."

Except you just pointed out the small players are acquired. Not all studies
are 100% correct. In fact, in the patent world there are many purposely
misleading studies.

> "Your claim about small businesses is a legend. That is, it's mostly a myth
> but with occasionally success stories to give it what little truth it has."

Or perhaps due to NDA's etc you don't hear about the small business successes.

> "Patents don't create innovation"

I hope I never said that because I completely agree. I would say something
more like patents supply incentive to innovate but by themselves don't create
anything but pieces of paper.

> "Patents then just restrict competition and drive prices up."

Same old tired line. If it drives prices up then generally it will lure
investors to invest - and to invest in patents requires investing in
innovation - investing in innovation means R&D.

> "And in courts that rule in favor of patent-holder almost 100% of the time?"

How long does it take for you to get a hint? ~15 years of patent reforms,
numerous SCOTUS cases, POTUS trying to get involved, etc. So much money and
effort spent yet patent-holders still winning. Do you honestly believe that
one more reform bill or one more President or one more SCOTUS ruling will
finally be the end? Whether I'm morally right or you're morally right -
perhaps you are better off to face reality than keep bucking the trend. Hope
is not a strategy.

~~~
nickpsecurity
I'm stepping back since you're clearly more interested in technicalities than
my overall point. So, I'm going to focus on that. Currently, there's two
claims about patents:

1\. They're the source off all kinds of innovation and startups that wouldn't
otherwise happen. This means CompSci doesn't happen unless private parties
fund it due to patents they expect. Most funding is by taxpayers. So, that's
not true. Private parties won't invest in things without patent protection?
Not true: they do anyway to remain competitive. Startups won't happen without
patent protection? They do anyway with them rarely using patents and some
using trade secrets. So, alleged benefits of patents are a lie, esp in
software space.

2\. They're primarily a tool to maximize profits of companies, small or large,
that contribute almost nothing in innovation or features. Every study I've
seen shows this. Plus, most suits are coming from groups that produce nothing:
acquire patents from someone for cheap, then sue anyone actually building
anything. Opposite of what system claims to do. Large companies make up most
of the rest of the suits by putting innovators out of business while leaving
their own products stagnant. They even sometimes try to take the products off
the market as we saw with Virnetx, Apple, and Microsoft.

So, net effect is that patents are hurting innovation. Plus, nobody producing
innovative stuff getting acquired did so by reading hundreds of thousands of
patents. Surveys show they rarely ever read a single patent. They look at
what's out there, maybe read academic work, build something, and sell it. Of
all that innovation, patents contributed jack and most don't even get patents
since they're expensive to get. Easier for big players the system is designed
to benefit. ;)

"How long does it take for you to get a hint? ~15 years of patent reforms,
numerous SCOTUS cases, POTUS trying to get involved, etc."

Vast amount of profits produced by legal monopolies gave patent holders more
money on lawyers and politicians have given them a good run. Plus, most of the
rest aren't uniting to deal with the problem with counter-lobbying. I had a
hint of that a while back. That doesn't mean we actual innovators should stop
fighting monopolies mostly issued to non-innovating, big companies and small
companies that sue instead of sell products.

"Same old tired line. If it drives prices up then generally it will lure
investors to invest - and to invest in patents requires investing in
innovation - investing in innovation means R&D."

That was so funny I had to respond to it. A patent is a _legal monopoly._ A
monopoly by definition and style will lead to higher prices than competitive
segment with many players innovating. If you're right, please tell me about
all those cancer and heart drugs that I can get for generic prices. Oh wait, I
can't, because they're patented and patent-holders charge whatever the market
will bear to maximize profits. Same everywhere else where alternative
innovations are hard to come by. Or existed but don't count in a "first-to-
file" system that favors patent holders.

~~~
jb613
> I'm stepping back since you're clearly more interested in technicalities
> than my overall point.

When I disagree with your overall sentiment that patents have no value - then
the technicalities ARE important. Regardless, I'll take the fact you feel the
need to take the battle to new ground as a win and we'll move on.

> 1\. They're the source off all kinds of innovation and startups that
> wouldn't otherwise happen.

"all kinds of innovation" \- never said anything like that. I said patents
incentivize investment into innovation. Big difference.

> Most funding is by taxpayers.

Well, I disagree with "most". Perhaps some but not most. In my experience,
plenty of innovation comes from small entities. If this is not the case then
why do larger players continually acquire the small companies? sometimes it's
for other reasons but I suggest that at least some of the time it's for their
innovations.

> "Private parties won't invest in things without patent protection? "

ok, clearly you are not reading what I'm writing. If you are referring to my
"patents incentivize investment" then how is that equivalent to "won't invest
without patent protection"?!

> So, alleged benefits of patents are a lie, esp in software space.

You are all over the place. Earlier you said patent holders win 100% of the
time (which in a free market would mean investors would eventually be drawn in
and invest in whatever it took to get these magical things called patents) and
now you're saying the benefits are a lie?

> "2\. They're primarily a tool to maximize profits of companies, small or
> large, that contribute almost nothing in innovation or features."

Of course they contribute nothing - they are merely pieces of paper. You don't
create the innovation in the patent application itself!

> "Plus, most suits are coming from groups that produce nothing: acquire
> patents from someone for cheap, then sue anyone actually building anything.
> "

An innovator can no longer approach a larger player with an improvement to one
of their products. The larger players have learned their most optimal business
strategy is to weed out the majority by ignoring them until an infringement
suit is brought. Many small players don't/can't - hence optimal strategy for
larger player.

Is it fair for the larger players to do this? Morally, probably not. But large
corporations have fiduciary duty to maximize profits to their shareholders -
so from the shareholders perspective it is.

However, from the small player standpoint, they need to do what they have to -
and often they realize that selling off their patent assets to another entity
is their best option. Call it troll if you like but in reality they are more
leveling the playing field by carrying out the IP enforcement that is
difficult for the small innovator to do themselves. Either way, a patent is a
patent and it matters not who owns it.

> "So, net effect is that patents are hurting innovation. "

For non-innovators or copycats that might be true, but for innovators that is
patently false.

> "Surveys show they rarely ever read a single patent."

And then they act all surprised when they are slapped with an infringement
trial :-) "But officer I did not see the sign".

> "That doesn't mean we actual innovators should stop fighting monopolies
> mostly issued to non-innovating, big companies and small companies that sue
> instead of sell products."

So the innovators aren't getting the patents while the non-innovators are?
Please, give it a rest.

> "A patent is a legal monopoly. A monopoly by definition and style will lead
> to higher prices than competitive segment with many players innovating"

Monopolies encourage investment - in this case, investment into patents means
investment into innovation means investment into R&D.

> "Or existed but don't count in a "first-to-file" system that favors patent
> holders."

This was introduced in the last patent reform (AIA). 2 steps forward and 1
back - or 1 forward and 2 back?

------
neves
Would this break the New World Order?

This is really interesting, maybe this will set a precedent for the creation
of tech companies in the developing world. The Developed World have a clear
plan: they will own all the "intellectual property" and use the cheap work in
developing countries. It is not a problem if the same company produces all
brands of printers. If it starts to sell a print itself, it will be sued to
death.

The world is completely ordered: high value jobs for the rich, low value for
the poor. We don't need brute force imperialism anymore.

If Xiaomi builds a rift in this structure, it may pave a way for other
companies/countries around the world.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Wait, how is this worse than developing country steals IP for domestic market,
can't sell abroad in countries where IP matters? China can and does
appropriate IP as needed, this is basically xiaomi's modus operandi. It stops
working when developing country company wants to make money in developed
market where IP is owned, which I guess is what they want with the patent
portfolio.

China in general has said "we don't care" about IP rights, it is only changing
now because (a) they are beginning to have their own IP to protect, (b) it is
a race to the bottom between local companies when NO IP is protected, and (c)
you will get sued to death on products sold in developed markets that are
questionable in IP usage.

High value jobs for the rich, low value jobs for the poor. Sounds like China,
the USA, and the rest of the world. Do not treat China as one homogenous pile
of poor workers.

~~~
jb613
> China in general has said "we don't care" about IP rights, it is only
> changing now because (a) they are beginning to have their own IP to protect,
> (b) it is a race to the bottom between local companies when NO IP is
> protected, and (c) you will get sued to death on products sold in developed
> markets that are questionable in IP usage.

Or is China now caring about IP because they have seen that it's more
profitable to the innovator rather than after-the-fact-copycat.

The bigger question is whether they can become the innovator. In some
instances, they have indicated they might but overall I'm not sold that they
can.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Actually, copying other IP has been seen as low hanging fruit, as it was for
many other economies at that stage of development (Japan post WW2, America in
the late 1800s as the industrial revolution was starting in the UK). Chinese
VCs preferred "copy successful ideas from west" ideas because they were much
lower risk for their capital.

It is just that the low hanging fruits are now almost all picked. Hopefully
they are reaching their Walkman moment.

~~~
jb613
> It is just that the low hanging fruits are now almost all picked.

If you're copying, then there is never an end to the low hanging fruit. Never.

> Hopefully they are reaching their Walkman moment.

To reach a Walkman moment they first have to invent a Walkman. Hope is not a
strategy.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
No, eventually the low hanging fruit runs out as you catch up with others and
copying has diminishing, as well as negative, returns. You can't develop and
secure your own IP as long as you are stealing others.

> To reach a Walkman moment they first have to invent a Walkman. Hope is not a
> strategy.

I'm talking about my own hopes here. And ya, they would have to invent a
"Walkman." It hasn't happened yet, none of Xiaomi's products so far are
original in anyway.

------
babayega2
in Africa most of the mobile phones sold here are from huawei, xiaomi and
other Chinese companies. And you find them cheaper and with most of the
features a high end smartphone have as.

~~~
ominous
Such as unlocked bootloaders, exposed filesystem and root access?

~~~
babayega2
Few yes. But most are stable phones with dual sims and Xiaomi and Huawei come
with less bloatwares. Unlocked bootloaders and root access are rarely seen.

------
aavotins
I have been eyeing Xiaomi for some time and even bought some of their
products. And I was not disappointed. Something tells me that it's going to be
the next Samsung.

~~~
mtgx
But, you know, with more backdoors.

~~~
Arnt
I'll bite. How do I know that and more than what?

------
ksec
It is one way to equip itself with patents for International Market. It is
also worth mentioning Xiaomi, should they decide to enter US market, will cost
a little more due to 4G licensing cost.

And Microsoft will get Office into the hands of million Xiaomi users.

~~~
neves
Phone manufacturers have to pay 4G licensing?

~~~
ksec
You will be surprised how much the 4G licensing are, they are based on % of
final sales. That is why the BOM cost people continue to use in Apple Products
are pointless. The amount of money from a phone feeding into the patents
system is insanely large.

Hence, Another reason why Apple do not have LTE in their Macbook yet.

------
kennell
I own two Xiaomi phones, the Redmi 3 and the Mi 4C. I imported both directly
from China for <$200 each. The hardware feels just like a $600-700 flagship
phone from a big brand, including Apple. I had to do some fiddling to get a
perfect english language ROM with the Playstore and without chinese bloatapps,
but now i am very happy with it. Quite frankly, i see no reason to ever pick
up a big brand phone again.

Of course if they enter western markets, the prices will go up (US/european
regulations, warranty law, license costs etc.), but if that price bump stays
reasonable... some of the big boys are in trouble.

~~~
Negative1
When you say imported, do you mean you literally paid import fees in addition
to just the shipping cost? If so, how much was that?

~~~
kennell
Within the EU you only pay the sales tax on the total invoice (phone+shipping
cost), here in Germany thats 19%. So if the phone invoice was 150€ + 10€ for
shipping, you will be paying roughly ~30€ in taxes ("Einfuhrumsatzsteuer").
However... that is only IF your phone gets stuck in customs. If you get lucky
you won't have to pay this*

* technically thats tax fraud - but even with the extra tax, it's still cheaper than buying from a EU-based reseller

------
techmicrobiz
I wonder if this move by Microsoft signals that the rumored Surface Phone will
be made by Xiaomi and to be potentially co-branded with Xiaomi?

------
yread
Anybody wants to speculate on price?

~~~
rasz_pl
I would guess around 1 Billion dollars ... worth of patents given away by
Microsoft as an 'investment' in Xiaomi. Just like Intel was forced to a 1.5B
'deal' last year.

There is a LOT of talk about anticompetitive practices by Microsoft lately,
this usually results in such pseudo investment/partnership with native chinese
company, or $1B anti competitive fine like the one Qualcomm received. Apple is
also on a short list of getting fined/kicked hard.

------
tonymm
Ready to enter US market.

------
samwestdev
I'd love a Xiaomi with vanilla android

~~~
greatergoodguy
I agree. I imported the Xiaomi Mi Note Pro and the hardware is fantastic. I
bought it when it was already 8 months old so it dropped in price from $500 to
$350. Adding a $20 import fee and the total was $370. It comes with 64 GBs
storage, 4 GBs ram, and a quad hd display (2560x1440).

Some things that are lame. No fingerprint sensor and no NFC.

------
happywolf
Remember Nokia.

------
ben1009
流氓会武术

