

Microsoft wants Samsung to pay it $15 for each Android handset - tilt
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/07/06/microsoft-wants-samsung-to-pay-it-15-for-each-android-handset/

======
rfrey
_Samsung is reportedly looking to lower the payment to nearer $10 per handset
in exchange for an alliance which benefit the creation of new Windows Phone
devices_

Suggests (certainly doesn't prove) that Samsung agrees they're using MS IP,
and they're just haggling over price. We have no idea from the article what
the patents are for - it could be a hardware patent for all we know. Unlikely,
yeah, but unless we know what the patent's for its tough to pass judgement.
Tempting and entertaining, but tough.

~~~
Zaim2
Well, they did have cross licensing agreement with Microsoft back in 2007, but
that didn't cover telecommunications.

[http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-
dea...](http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-
deal/2100-1014_3-6177381.html)

Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed
patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than
the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is
valid.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
These patents have already been tested in court by other Android handset
manufacturers and MS won. Samsung would only be increasing the cost, reducing
the likelihood of a favourable partnership deal and postponing the inevitable.

~~~
Zaim2
Do you have links/sources?

I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone
else immediately settled.

------
nextparadigms
Samsung should go to court with them, and they should also cease any plans to
launch WP7 phones. Microsoft is like a leech in the smartphone industry. They
saw they can't make money with their own product, so they try to scare the
little guys into paying up, to make it seem that they are right on this, and
then go after the big guys, too.

Even if using Android costs manufacturers the same as using WP7, why would
they use it over Android, when Android is a _very_ proven product in the
market, while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now,
and dropping.

Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones?
I think they are much more likely to get a lot of bad PR over this, because
there are a lot of Android users and only a few WP7 users. This bad PR will
focus negatively on their future products, like Windows 8. They are creating a
_negative halo effect_ around their products.

~~~
mcritz
_Samsung should go to court with them_

What happens if a judge rules in favor of a Microsoft injunction against
selling Samsung-made Android phones? The trial could last years—or decades—and
the whole time Samsung couldn't sell it's phones in the US.

~~~
markokocic
I'm pretty sure that Samsung has enough patents to sue Microsoft in counter
case and actually force them to negotiate.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
You think a hardware company has a lot of patents Microsoft are currently
breaching?

~~~
markokocic
MS is also doing hardware with Xbox and their mice.

------
blinkingled
When the Nortel patent deal is approved they would double up on the $15.

Wondering what counter strategy other than pay up are Samsung and other
Android handset vendors pondering.

At this point it just sounds like the OHA will have to do patent pooling and
go head to head against leeches to either get a very favorable deal or not
have to pay anything at all. Google+TI+Samsung+Sony and the 80 others (ZTE has
LTE patents for e.g.) must have enough patents to realize something like this.

It would be terminally bad for Android if instead of paying the ever
increasing royalties to MS, vendors just chose to ship WP7 instead. And WP7 is
fast getting near more than good enough. The game could change in Microsoft's
favor with Nokia at MSFT's disposal sooner than we think.

EDIT : S3 was bought by HTC, and they have a successful claim against Apple.
Hmm.

------
JonoW
Pretty crap what MS is doing. The $10/15 per handset seems so high, what
exactly is this patent that they're referring to?

~~~
JamieEi
It appears to be multiple patents, virtually all obvious and with significant
prior art:

• 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames

• 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames

• 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an
indicator for invoking erasure operations

• 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a
hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer

• 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database

• 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes

• 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior

• 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and
synchronization using resource state information

• 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile
device

• Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their
device apps via a separate control window with tabs;

• Enable display of a webpage’s content before the background image is
received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;

• Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;

• Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection;
and

• Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying
document.

[http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-
sues...](http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-sues-
motorola-citing-android-patent-infringement.ars)

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/03/21/android-
patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx)

I really hate software patents and the trolls that abuse them.

~~~
ditojim
i hate that these bullet points are patent-able. i dont think the system was
ever intended for this sort of granularity. we should protect big ideas, not
functions necessary to run any modern mobile operating system.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I understood that patents are for the opposite: not to patent ideas, but a
particular invention.

------
saucetenuto
> Microsoft has leveraged its intellectual property rights in recent weeks,
> utilising its IP licensing program to extend rights to smartphone vendors.

What a remarkable sentence. I think my favorite part is "extend rights", but
there's a lot to enjoy and it's hard to pick just a few words.

------
Uchikoma
Even if there are patents, I'm not sure how they explain the $15 value as part
of the phone price (10% for smaller handsets?)

~~~
kenjackson
They don't have to explain it. They don't have to license these technologies
under reasonable terms. They could, rather than seek royalties, seek
injunctions. Or they could seek $500/unit in future payments (which would
basically be an injunction). Although for past units shipped they'd get, at
best, what one would consider reasonable.

~~~
Uchikoma
That assumes patents are not for being sold as a product in a market, but for
extortion.

------
naner
All these companies getting harassed by Microsoft should pool their patents
together for defensive purposes.

------
wildmXranat
As much as I hate to use the word tax in this instance, it seems like it, and
it hits your pocketbook my friend. The cost is passed onto you and I and it's
nothing but a fictional tarrif. Smart people don't shell out $700 on a new
device or get tangled up in a 3-year contract that puts a $2100 dent in your
budget over 36 months. They curtail the hit by shopping thrifty. Additionally,
market atmosphere that feeds off of luxury goods bragging rights tends to pull
shit like this all the time. Create hype, add marketing and hysteria, cover
all legal ends by patenting, cross-licensing, charge $COST + $MARGIN + $FEES.
Galaxy SII campaign is a good example.

Now, there's no intention of sounding anti-capitalist, what have you, but the
mobile market seems like a giant red herring.

~~~
Shenglong
_Smart people don't shell out $700 on a new device or get tangled up in a
3-year contract that puts a $2100 dent in your budget over 36 months_

If you're going to use your phone anyway, why wouldn't you get "tied" into a
contract? Contracts aren't made to screw you over - they're made to retain
customers over a certain amount of time. Considering the heavy regular by the
FCC in the US and the CCTS in Canada, you can't really even get screwed over.

This is completely aside from the point I'm trying to make, but you're never
really tied into a contract if you're smart. Customer service reps at all the
major phone companies are so poorly trained, that forcing a mistake is
extremely easy. There are also other regulations in place, that makes escaping
a contract without a fee, very possible.

~~~
wildmXranat
Correct on many fronts, but the regulations you speak of are local to
whichever market you're in. Here, in Canada, a person will be nicked $20 x
number of months left plus I think $10 x number of months left on data plan.
Altogether, it is capped at around $300 - $400 just to leave.

That is insane when you compare it to what it actually gets you.

~~~
Shenglong
I'm in Canada, and I've filed CCTS complaints for both Rogers and Bell. Bell
refunded me about $500, and cancelled my plan for free. Rogers had a different
issue, but fixed all my problems as well. It's just that most people don't
realize there are regulating bodies, and thus do not pursue injustices.

In the US, Verizon's executive office called me with an apology, and fixed up
the problems as well. Verizon took about 15 days to respond. Bell took about a
month, and Rogers took about 5 months. In the end though, they compensate you
as if they would've responded right away.

------
bluedanieru
The timing of this is interesting, they must feel emboldened after getting a
cut of the Nortel patents. May they die a thousand deaths.

------
shareme
Another question when a company signs a patent royalty agreement is there any
contractual language that limits what they can say about the agreement in
terms of terms of motivations? Yes, I know they have limits on whether they
can mention the patent or patent specifics, etc..I am just wondering if
Samsung cannot than make a PR campaign maligning MS for their patent
trolling..

~~~
kenjackson
_I am just wondering if Samsung cannot than make a PR campaign maligning MS
for their patent trolling_

I'm sure they could, but business is not like an episode of Degrassi Junior
High. Samsung wants as many partners as possible. If a carrier wants WP
devices, they want to be the one to make them. Android, they want to be there
too. While Apple is suing Samsung, I'm sure Samsung would take more Apple
orders if possible.

If anything, Samsung may push MS to collect royalties from other vendors, to
level the playing field. And this is probably why MS is on a roll. If one
company is going to pay royalties, they want to make it easier for MS to
collect royalties from the next company. So they're more likely to provide
collateral, in various ways, to strengthen Microsoft's claims. MS can use this
to then go down the street to LG and say, "Samsung and HTC just openly
admitted that this technology infringes. It appears you use it to."

I'm not a fan of the patent trolling, but I must say that I tip my hat to the
guy in the MS IP group running this.

------
shareme
A question...lets say at some point the MS patents under the royalty agreement
get invalidated can than Samsung ask for its money back?

~~~
mcritz
No. They sign a contract that probably covers that unlikely outcome.

