
Microsoft Takes Legal Action Against Barnes & Noble over Android - ldayley
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2011/mar11/03-21CorpNewsPR.mspx
======
possibilistic
Patents are disgusting as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't matter the
industry.

I'm in biotech, and despite the tedious work involved in the process of
investigative research--despite the sometimes massive materials and labor cost
--patents do not make any sense.

In the end, the products of molecular cloning can be distributed essentially
just like software. It's just information. You should not be able to corner
off and control information space. If I want to work in a given area according
to my interest, I should not have to pay royalties or join an exclusive
research team.

~~~
potatolicious
There's at least a _potential_ defense of patents in traditional industries.
When something takes tens of millions of dollars of research to create,
there's _some_ case to be made for limited-term exclusivity.

But when it comes to something like UI, which someone hacked up over the
course of a few hours... does this justify exclusivity for years?

Patents were created to balance the harmful effect of exclusivity and monopoly
with the cost of creating innovation. In software the cost of creating
innovation is practically free in comparison to traditional industries, and
IMHO the scope of protection needs to be proportionate.

~~~
TillE
Developing a new drug costs about $1 billion on average, from initial research
to final testing and regulatory approval. A temporary monopoly of several
years seems entirely appropriate, even necessary if you expect private
industry to be involved in pharmaceutical research.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Or so they keep telling us anyway:

 _Does the pharmaceutical industry exaggerate their R &D costs? _

[http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-
pharmaceuti.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-
pharmaceuti.html)

~~~
Locke1689
From the first comment on that article:

 _I never post here, but after seeing this, I just had to. The Light article
is very biased and disingenuous - they have an agenda that's obvious from the
tone of their text. For a realistic rebuttal, check
out:[http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of...](http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/07/the_costs_of_drug_research_beginning_a_rebuttal.php)
[http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/08/that_43_mill...](http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/03/08/that_43_million_rd_figure.php)

There are many other realistic, balanced rebuttals to the Light article out
there as well. I've worked in the the biotech and drug industry (10 years) and
am currently an academic. I've been on both sides of the fence and have a
realistic perspective on how much it costs and how tough it is to discover and
develop new medicines. The Light/Warburton figure is WAY off._

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Note his rebuttal is mostly addressed to their own suggested $43 million
figure, rather than disputing that the original $1+ billion figure is correct,
as he seems to agree with the part of the paper discussing the problems with
that number.

There's an couple of orders of magnitude between the estimates, so it's
entirely possible for both to be _WAY off_.

------
potatolicious
Dammit Microsoft, just as I was starting to feel sympathetic towards the
underdog smartphone player, you pull something like this.

~~~
bad_user
Not their first time - Motorola and HTC were the first ones.

They tried branding themselves as the underdog with Bing too; but somehow I
have trouble picturing them as the underdog.

You can do business with them, you can buy their products, but they don't
deserve sympathy. No company does actually; you should treat them just as they
treat you.

~~~
barista
Here's a more comprehensive infographic of who is sueing who.
[http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/infographic-whos-
suing-w...](http://www.mobilemarketingwatch.com/infographic-whos-suing-who-in-
mobile-10120/)

Nothing to feel sympathetic for anybody. They are all in the business to make
money.

~~~
zmmmmm
There's one thing I will point out on that diagram: there are no arrows
emerging from Google. Not that we should feel sympathy for them, and perhaps
it might just be that they don't have enough of a portfolio, but I think it's
worth noting all the same.

~~~
Lewisham
That most probably means one of two things:

1\. Google hasn't got any relevant patents (unlikely)

2\. Google has a number of defensive patents in other things, and have
threatened to countersue anyone who comes after them (like Sun before Oracle),
which explains the cowards going after the smaller manufacturers instead.

~~~
CountSessine
Google actually has very few patents. Which makes sense. You own and generate
a lot of patents if

1\. You're interested in shaking-down others (IBM comes to mind)

2\. You've written a big cheque to someone who shook you down and now you're
trying to defend yourself.

#1 certainly doesn't apply to Google - not yet at least. And I don't think
that Google has been badly burned in a patent dispute with anyone yet, so it
doesn't look like they've made generating defensive lawsuits a big priority
yet.

One source on the web from a couple of years ago says that Google's name
appears on only about 190 patents in total. I did a search and was able to
find ~600 patents with Google as the assignee. The same search yielded ~3700
patents for Apple, ~17000 for Microsoft, and ~64000 for IBM. Apparently Apple
was issued more than 700 patents in 2010 alone, versus Google's 282. For the
last few years, this is how many patents some of these companies have been
issued:

#2010: _Apple 722_ Google 282 _Microsoft 3305_ Foxconn/honhai 1885

#2009: _Apple 399_ Google 143 _Microsoft 3160_ Foxconn/honhai 1310

#2008: _Apple 254_ Google 60 _Microsoft 2310_ Foxconn/honhai 1005

#2007: _Apple 157_ Google 35 _Microsoft 1958_ Foxconn/honhai 673

#2006: _Apple 133_ Google 22 _Microsoft 1614_ Foxconn/honhai 653

#1999-2005 _Apple 843_ Google 14 _Microsoft 3643_ Foxconn/honhai 3262

Searching through some of these patents is really discouraging. I remember
that when Apple brought their suit against HTC (really, against Android and
Google), there were a lot of armchair lawyers here on HN and elsewhere
claiming just how obvious some of the patents that Apple was weilding were. At
the time I actually believed that some of them had merit. But looking through
some of these patents, especially some of the Foxconn ones, is there anyone
who really believes that the front bezel design for a PC case
(<http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D512721.html>) or the particulars of a
generic USB stick (<http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D537819.html>) should
be patentable? Some of the stuff that I've been looking at over the last hour
makes Apple's and Microsoft's patents look like Bell's patent on the
telephone.

~~~
kahirsch
The patents that start with "D" are design patents, not utility patents. I
don't really know how big a problem they are. It seems like it would be pretty
easy to avoid them if you knew about them, although how you would know about
them all I have no idea.

~~~
tesseract
My understanding is that a design patent is really only any good against a
near-exact copy of the design.

------
forgotAgain
The hypocrisy of Microsoft is really a turn-off.

Microsoft statement on this new action against Barnes and Noble:

 _Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action
to defend our innovations and fulfill our responsibility to our customers,
partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each
year to bring great software products and services to market?_

Then there is their statement regarding their appeal of the $290 millions
dollar judgement against MS for infringing on i4I.

 _This case can be summed up in one world – balance,” Microsoft’s David
Howard, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for litigation,
said in a statement. “The current approach taken by the Court of Appeals
improperly tilts the scales to reward invalid patents. That approach needs to
be corrected in favor of a system that ensures the process for obtaining and
defending patents is clear, reasonable and doesn’t unduly burden the system or
innovation._

~~~
tzs
What hypocrisy? The two quotes you give do not show any sign of hypocrisy.

Microsoft's position is that software should be patentable, but that the
standard for obtaining software patents is off and the courts are not doing a
good job dealing with them. Both of the quotes you give are consistent with
this view.

~~~
forgotAgain
In the first instance they are wrapping themselves in the righteousness of
their claims which are at best questionable. In the second they are lamenting
how wrong it is that a company has to defend itself against spurious claims.

~~~
tzs
The mens rea for hypocrisy is that the alleged hypocrant believes one thing
and is acting in a way inconsistent with that belief. They may be _wrong_
about their belief, but that is irrelevant.

You assert that Microsoft's claims are questionable. Assuming that is so for
the sake of argument (I have not looked at the patents so cannot say), I see
no reason to believe that _Microsoft_ thinks their claims are questionable.

In your first case, they likely believe that they have valid patents which
they are asserting against an infringer. In your second, they believe that
invalid patents are being asserted against them.

There is simply nothing hypocritical here.

EDIT: had the word "patentable" in the second paragraph where it should have
said "questionable".

~~~
forgotAgain
If we were in a court of law then I would agree with you but since we are not
in a court of law I will hold to a different definition of hypocritical:
applying a criticism to others that one does not apply to oneself.

------
magicalist
patents:

[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=deQCAAAAEBAJ&dq=5...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=deQCAAAAEBAJ&dq=5778372)

[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JvQAAAAAEBAJ&dq=5...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=JvQAAAAAEBAJ&dq=5889522)

[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=DwEJAAAAEBAJ&dq=6...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=DwEJAAAAEBAJ&dq=6339780)

[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=oKgVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=oKgVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6891551)

[http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=jJcVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6...](http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=jJcVAAAAEBAJ&dq=6957233)

~~~
mycroftiv
I actually took the time to read those patents, and as broken as I thought the
US patent system was, I didn't realize it was that bad. One of the patents is
actually a patent on displaying a temporary loading animation when a browser
is downloading rather than having a dedicated loading status indicator.
Another patent is for displaying a document while the background image is
downloading rather than waiting for the background image!

~~~
famousactress
True story. I worked on Hewlett Packard's first digital camera project around
'97 or so. We were getting ready to freeze the firmware when the final legal
review turned up a patent that another company (don't remember who, wanna say
Samsung?) had been granted. The patent covered menus on the back of a digital
camera where the cursor moved across menu items when you pressed up and down.
We were asked to scramble and make the menu move underneath a static cursor to
avoid exposure.

The best part was that the patent was granted sometime around 1980, if memory
serves.

------
ChuckMcM
Not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. It presumably adds weight to
consolidating Android patent litigation (Apple vs HTC, Oracle vs Google,
Microsoft vs B&N, Etc.)

On a related note, when I was first pitched on the idea of OpenMoko and 'Open
Source Phones' in general, I responded that the existing infrastructure anti-
bodies wouldn't take kindly to something like that existing. When Google went
there with their psueudo-OSS (POSS) product, at least they have the capital to
defend against spurious attacks.

So the good news is that all around the table everyone has gone 'all in' (to
use the poker vernacular). That suggests to me that this is the end of the
beginning. My prediction is that we will have 6 to 10 years of litigation
ahead (it is time limited by patent lifetimes in terms of starting new
litigation beyond that time frame).

At best, we'll get Google holding out to the end. That will result in a pretty
definitive doctrine for creating an open source phone by 2020. At worst, these
will collapse into an MPEG-LA or Public-Key-Partners scenario creating a leech
like entity that bleeds the public dry, enriches the players, while allowing
them to side step direct blame. (such a settlement would most likely 'require'
that nobody portion of the fees paid back to the rights holders be public)

Nothing particularly disruptive on the horizon unfortunately. I keep hoping
for a 'wifi' smart phone that uses a network built with the white-space bands
in the US. Of course they would keep a low profile, given the nature of their
threat, but they would also have to raise probably 200 - 300 M$ to deploy and
haven't seen that either.

The pessimist in me thinks there will be a run on Vaseline.

------
cbo
This reminds me of Ballmer's claims that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents.
They ultimately resulted in nothing, I see this heading in the same direction.

It seems more like a scare tactic than anything else. If they really wanted to
go after Android, Google or Samsung would probably be included. Instead,
they're going after some lower profile (though still very recognizable)
manufacturers. To me that says they want publicity, not necessarily legal
results.

~~~
bradleyland
I'm afraid not. This is something else entirely. Microsoft is rapidly losing
their relevance and they're fighting to find a way forward. Something I wrote
back in October when the Microsoft/Acacia patent licensing news hit.

"Microsoft has identified patents as the most effective attack against anyone
seeking to profit from FOSS. Rather than attack FOSS directly, you dump as
much money as you can in to littering the intellectual property space for a
given product with patent mines. Step on a patent mine and all of the sudden
you’re paying Microsoft (or someone else) for sitting on their ass and
building a patent portfolio rather than innovating with any real products."

[http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/10/08/the-new-patent-
troll-e...](http://www.bradlanders.com/2010/10/08/the-new-patent-troll-
economy/)

------
guelo
As a software engineer I pledge to never work for or in any other way assist
the following companies as long as they continue their anti-competitive abuse
of software patents that is harming our industry and the future of mobile
computing: Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Kodak, RIM.

Will other devs pledge with me?

~~~
clavalle
This is a fine idea.

I think, along the same lines as a talent revolt, an organization wherein
developers can pool a monthly fee to push our interests as an industry that
thrives on actual innovation might be in order.

Say $30-$50 a month/dev or other interested individuals to go to funding a
'Patent Defense Fund' for members, building and maintaining a prior art
database, and buying useful patents for the use as the little guy's nuclear
deterrent.

~~~
nitrogen
Does the Open Invention Network accept donations, or companies without many
patents to contribute to the pool?

~~~
clavalle
I don't know. The Open Invention Network is Linux centric so it is not really
what I was referring to above which would be more of a cross-industry entity.

------
famousactress
Ugggh. Since the idea behind patents is to promote innovation, and not prevent
it.. why can't that be a measure evaluated in the process of granting or
enforcing the patent?

Microsoft should have to provide a compelling argument for how much money went
into the 'research' around these UI paradigms, how without that investment
these ideas would have never come about, how allowing them time to recoup that
investment is better for the world than allowing other entities to copy the
work.

In short, we're all collectively allowing these companies to file and enforce
these patents ... we should expect them to prove to us that they're worthy.

~~~
Peaker
Or maybe just try disallowing patents altogether for a couple of decades to
see how that works out?

~~~
famousactress
Don't get me wrong.. I'm as cynical as the next guy about the patent system..
but I do think the merits of the lucid arguments for it ought to be considered
in a re-think. If you're spending loads of money on research to make an idea
possible, and that idea is easily copied in a way that undercuts your ability
to profit.. then I guess I get that. I just think you ought to have to _prove_
it.

Effectively, this would come pretty close to eliminating software patents
altogether... but presumably wouldn't hurt the abilities of biotech, pharma,
medical devices and the like where (I assume) the research dollars are often
very real.

------
tzs
Mobile is getting too complicated. At last count that I saw:

    
    
       Apple: suing 2, being sued by 3
       Toshiba: being sued by 1
       Sony-Ericsson: being sued by 1
       Sharp: being sued by 3
       Samsung: being sued by 2
       RIM: suing 2
       Qualcomm: suing 1, being sued by 1
       Oracle: suing 1
       Nokia: suing 8, being sued by 2
       Motorola: being sued by 3
       Microsoft: suing 3
       B&N: being sued by 1
       LG: being sued by 2
       Kodak: suing 5
       HTC: being sued be 2
       Hitachi: being sued by 1
       Google: being sued by 1
       Elan: suing 1

~~~
hendler
This is older, but the visual is impressive:
[http://www.technewsdaily.com/smartphone-companies-in-a-
vicio...](http://www.technewsdaily.com/smartphone-companies-in-a-vicious-
cycle-of-suing-and-countersuing--1403/)

~~~
bitwize
Whoa. Looks like the Watson ball.

------
ig1
How is this even legal in the US? - in the UK you can only sue the producer of
violating product and not the distributer, and even threatening a distributer
without having first won a court case against the producer is illegal (to stop
companies strong-arming distributers with patent threats regardless of the
validity of the patents which the distributer can't reasonably expected to be
knowledgable about).

It seems in this case the lawsuit is against functionality in Android and B&N
are merely the distributer.

------
ams6110
Microsoft claims that the patents infringed include "natural ways of
interacting with devices." I checked my thesaurus and alternative words for
_natural_ include: normal, ordinary, everyday, usual, regular, common,
commonplace, typical, routine, standard, established, customary, accustomed,
habitual.

I thought patents were supposed to be issued only for "novel" innovations?

------
eschulte
There's no point being angry with Microsoft as, like any company, their stated
goal is to make money. Anger should be directed at the US patent system which
creates an environment in which businesses must act this way -- not an
entirely fair statement given that companies like Microsoft no doubt influence
patent legislation, and do so generally for the worse.

If this bothers you don't rage against companies for playing the game, donate
to the EFF <https://www.eff.org/> or call your elected representatives.

------
mrspandex
[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) has some more details

~~~
marshray
It amazes me that anyone really believes that stuff. I posted this comment
there, don't know if it'll show up:

If Microsoft truly had "innovated" all this great smartphone user experience,
why is it that nobody seems to want a phone with a Microsoft OS?

But the really stupid thing is that Microsoft is far more vulnerable to patent
litigation than anyone else at this point. Barnes & Noble can survive a
judge's order blocking sales of Nook a lot longer than Microsoft can survive a
shutdown of Windows or Office.

The obvious conclusion is that Microsoft itself doesn't believe it can
innovate in a fair market competition.

Like stars, the end state for large technology companies is a black hole of
litigation and patent trolling.

------
rdl
I think if Microsoft wanted to declare "developer friendliness", they would
unilaterally declare that they won't engage in offensive patent actions, and
encourage all other companies to do the same. Or, just make it entirely opt-
in; they promise not to sue anyone who won't sue them.

I suspect it would cost them not much more than their current startup outreach
efforts, and would build a lot more goodwill.

------
megamark16
If you can't fight 'em, sue 'em. When will the software patent insanity end?

~~~
marshray
When it's someone other than lawyers writing the law.

~~~
podperson
I think if we have someone other than lawyers writing laws things will get
worse, not better.

The patent system has serious problems, so does Microsoft Windows. Do you
think Windows would be better if it weren't developed by software engineers?

<http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html>

~~~
joebadmo
Your analogy doesn't really hold, because software engineers probably use the
software they create, so they have an incentive to make it good. Lawyers have
an incentive to make laws such that you need more lawyers, which the patent
system succeeds at marvellously.

That's not to say that there's really an alternative, just pointing out the
perverse incentive structure.

~~~
woodson
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense. Equally, one could make the case that
software engineers have an incentive to make bad/incomplete/burdensome
software so that they are still needed to provide fixes/updates. Lawyers also
"use" the law, it still applies to them.

The patent situation won't change, as the players involved are too keen of
their portfolios.

~~~
joebadmo
I think the perverse incentive you point to wrt software is a real one. I
think that's why the tools that engineers use are usually the best pieces of
software.

I don't think patent lawyers are generally have to use patent law in the same
way that software engineers have to use software.

~~~
marshray
Of course they don't allow the patenting of processes essential to patent
lawyering so the analogy doesn't hold.

But my point was that the patent system really is "used" by lawyers and they
do, in fact, optimize it for their purposes (e.g., extracting wealth from
others who actually produce things of value).

------
mrspeaker
Is there a reason for the "Click Here to Install Silverlight" link at the top
of the page? Is there a video or something on this page about the legal
action, or is it just a friendly suggestion?

~~~
protomyth
Seems to be a standard Microsoft home site thing.

~~~
rbanffy
That's the only way someone will install this thing, after all... No other
site will do that.

~~~
unp3rs0n
netflix

~~~
rbanffy
I'd rather not use Netflix.

~~~
Locke1689
And we all know that the web habits of the majority of broadband internet
users is primarily based on rbanffy.

~~~
rbanffy
I can't speak for the majority of broadband users. I can only say I'd rather
not use Netflix than install Silverlight.

I have lived just fine without it anyway and chances are my TV can do it on
its own without Silverlight.

~~~
Locke1689
You claim that no other site would give a reason to install Silverlight.
Someone mentions Netflix, a popular website which depends on Silverlight being
installed. You then say that you would prefer not using Netflix to installing
Silverlight. Your comment then becomes

1) A non sequitur. Your own choice has no bearing on the last two comments
except to voice your own feelings about silverlight.

2) A suggestion that your own feelings for Silverlight reflect the vast
majority of broadband Internet users, directly contradicting all available
data.

I chose the most charitable interpretation of your comment, as option 1) is
clearly off-topic and not relevant to the thread or the article.

~~~
rbanffy
> Your own choice has no bearing on the last two comments except to voice your
> own feelings about silverlight.

You got that partly right. I have no need for Silverlight.

> A suggestion that your own feelings for Silverlight reflect the vast
> majority of broadband Internet users

Maybe you are reading too much in my comment. Anyway, Silverlight adoption is
low, pointing out few people feel the need to install it.

------
moondowner
If you can't lead the wave, ride on it.

~~~
rbanffy
Or crash it so nobody rides it.

------
nkassis
Anyone has a list of the patents in question? It seems like if the description
is right, it has something to do with the UI. I was expecting something like
the usual patent suit over the FAT filesystem used on SDCards or something
like that. This is more serious.

------
wynand
I hope an American lawyer can answer this (or at least someone with a good
knowledge of the US legal system).

What can an individual (even one outside of the US) do to effect change in the
software patent landscape? Who needs to made aware of the problems in the
patent system? How can these people be reached? What will it take to get them
to introduce changes that reduce the number of these lawsuits?

Is there anyone running a website dedicated to 1) cataloguing obvious ideas to
act as prior art, 2) collecting cases for use in lawsuits involving software
patents, 3) systematizing steps for how individuals can make a change?

------
etherael
Does there exist some organisation which acts as an umbrella treaty against
patent abuse. For example a centralised pool of patents held by all member
companies in the organisation is used as a deterrent against patent abuse, in
the event that any member of the organisation is attacked with a patent, all
other members attack the aggressor with their patents?

Patents seem to be enough of a thorn in the side of business that it would be
beneficial for at least a significant amount of businesses to participate in
such an organisation. If this does not exist, why not?

~~~
robrenaud
If you don't want to build anything, it doesn't matter.

Patent trolls are basically ghosts with guns. There is nothing to really shoot
at to kill.

You can potentially take their gun away by invalidating their patents, they
have no big downside risk. There is no profitable software development portion
of the company that you can blow up.

~~~
etherael
Except in this particular instance, and in many other instances, it's not just
pure patent trolls doing the abuse. Microsoft (and many of the other players
in this war) does actually have a profitable software development portion of
the company that could be blown up.

------
devmach
That's why you never build your business in US...

~~~
marshray
It really doesn't matter. If you want to sell products into the US or the
industrialized world in general, you are put at risk by the patent system.

~~~
devmach
Sure... But as i see, the patent system in US is a mess. That can make my
business fragile : I develop some app and then some troll sues me, so now
instead investing in innovation , i have to invest my lawyer !

Maybe you have to do more paperworks in other Countries (ex. Germany) but your
business is not in danger because bad use of patents. Sure other countries
have also patent trolls but the system is not bad and currupt as US.

~~~
marshray
What I'm saying is that being based somewhere other than the US does not make
you immune to the effect of US patents.

Even if you refuse to sell your product into the US market (good luck), as in
this case, your customers can be sued in the US.

------
rch
Does anyone make generic mobile hardware yet? The concept seems to have paid
off for personal computing.

~~~
CountSessine
How feasible is this? To have interchangeable and commoditized component
smartphones? Probably not feasible at all I would think. The desktop pc gives
up a lot of performance and simplicity for compatibility and modularity. But
the constraints that they're designed within are pretty simple - maximize
performance and minimize price, and try not to pull any more than 15 amps out
of the wall. Smartphones need to optimize for CPU performance, component
price, power draw, component size, rf stability, and then they still need to
have an attractive design to appeal to fickle phone customers. I don't know
how much leeway they would have to establish a uniform hardware design to
minimize os and driver customization that would be necessary for an
installable-os platform.

~~~
rch
I disagree. There are some interesting multi-core SoC parts hitting the
market, ARM is 'in', the move to solid state storage is effectively complete,
and multi-touch screens provide a rich interface without the bulk of keyboards
and pointing devices. Go back and look at the OQO, but swap in modern hardware
and VM tech. Include 802.11 if it is cheap and efficient enough, but provide a
slot for drop-in 4g, bluetooth, DRM (the Nook/Kindle plug... probably not an
iPod but maybe a Zune plug), etc. --note that having only one 'net' slot
pressures providers to bundle content, allow subscribers to extend
connectivity plans to cover a content device... it gets complicated but it
both creates a product quality incentive and provides opportunities for
providers to profit by differentiation.

Build in something like Xen and plan on syncing the user disk image to the
network, and run expensive processes on external devices (or AWS) when
available. Dock to your laptop to build the presentation; deliver it from your
this thing. Dock the thing to any TV and play a movie, without having to move
the content from one device to another. etc. etc. etc.

I fully expect these to be commodity parts made by the likes of Dell or HP
inside of 8-12 years.

~~~
CountSessine
_I fully expect these to be commodity parts made by the likes of Dell or HP
inside of 8-12 years._

Setting aside the fact that neither Dell nor HP actually make any of the parts
inside their _PCs_ now, I think there are too many separate issues that you're
bringing up here. Clarifying,

1\. Will netbooks (you mentioned the OQO) be built on modular, user-swappable
hardware components.

2\. Will smartphones be built on modular, user-swappable hardware components
(you said, " _802.11 if it is cheap and efficient enough, but provide a slot
for drop-in 4g, bluetooth, DRM_ ")

3\. Will smartphones be build according to a fixed hardware/software HAL that
is well specified enough that no OS or driver customization is needed and
user-installable and substitutable OS's are possible.

#1 is possible IMHO. A few years ago ASUS was selling a customizable laptop
platform that small computer stores could build and sell as their own brand.
It was big and bulky and went away quickly, which is always going to be a
problem with modular hardware, so I don't see this as ever being very popular.
But someone might try it again with netbooks.

#2 is just never going to happen. Forget about it. if you _provide a slot for
drop-in 4g, bluetooth, DRM_ , someone else is going to build a competing
smartphone with all of that built in but without the bulky connector and
housing. It'll be smaller and sexier than your monster-smartphone, and it'll
probably have better battery life with the extra internal room for a larger
battery. Modularity is irrelevant when you can just include everything that's
cutting-edge at the moment and you'll just get a new smartphone in a couple of
years under a new contract anyways.

#3 might happen, but I still doubt it. It goes back to what I said about
constraints and room for innovation. When something big needs to change with
the PC HAL (like USB3), Intel, Microsoft, Dell, and a bunch of others have to
get together and formulate something like XHCI to provide a common hardware
interface - otherwise every USB3 chip would require a separate loadable
driver. In the embedded market and with smartphones, there's no constraint on
the hardware interface - you just throw the chip in and then add a kernel
driver for it. Time saved, competitive advantage gained.

How much longer would it have taken for NFC to be included in smartphones if
Samsung, HTC, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, and others had to get together
and hash out a common hardware interface for NFC chips the way PC
manufacturers do with stuff like UHCI/EHCI/AHCI/etc? A lot longer. And given
that no one expects user-installable and substitutable OSs on smartphones,
there's no incentive now or in the future to provide one. And given that a
smartphone platform that provides a common HAL is going to be at a competitive
disadvantage wrt smartphones with custom hardware, there's no thin end to this
wedge.

~~~
rch
First, thanks for the nice response.

"Setting aside the fact that neither Dell nor HP actually make any of the
parts inside their PCs now"

I was referring to the whole device as a 'part', and don't really expect Dell
or HP take over from Broadcom, TI, and so on. Anyone that sells a tablet could
sell this.

1: Hopefully not. Ideally, hardware should perform well for the lifetime of
the device, without having to swap out any of the internals. I gave up
screwdrivers a few years ago.

2: I don't think I said smartphones... but you could use the slot to turn
whatever it is into a phone, if you really need it. Personally, I will use
something akin to Google voice or Skype over 802.11, but mobile data
connections are fine. It needn't be bulky either -- the smaller express card
form factor was nice, for instance.

3: Can you run your OS on Xen, etc.? Then everything will be fine. A good
prototype device would run an AMI directly from your AWS account... a killer
device would be able to expose exotic integrated hardware features when
available, but it would be up to an OS to deal with it. Now, that's obviously
more difficult, but not as difficult it was ten years ago.

Point taken on the NFC example. In my world though, people only need to agree
at the VM level.

------
JonoW
I normally defend Microsoft, but then they pull crap like this. This lawsuit
dance is ridiculous.

------
ck2
All they really want to do is make Android devices cost more so their fee for
software on their own hardware will look competitive.

Interesting how they aren't suing Google directly?

------
FlorianMueller
I have listed the patents in my blog post on this:
[http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-
barne...](http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-
foxconn-and.html)

1 of them was previously also asserted against Motorola. 4 of them weren't.

Since Microsoft already has 23 patents in suit against Motorola, Barnes &
Noble will know that the 5 patents asserted today are but a small selection of
Microsoft patents allegedly infringed by Android.

~~~
bodski
_If Barnes & Noble refused to pay (which is what Microsoft says), it's
actually a matter of fairness that Microsoft enforces its patents because
otherwise those who respect Microsoft's rights would be at a competitive
disadvantage versus non-paying infringers._

Jeez Florian, you have come a long way since your campaign against software
patents.

A few days ago you blow up the Bionic GPL issue as if it was an unprecedented
tactic used by Google (and were soundly rebutted on LWN by the way ;) and now
this.

Have you received funding from Microsoft at any point, perchance?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Does it actually make sense to talk about "respecting" "rights" granted to you
by a patent before it has been proved in a court of law? There's clearly some
disagreement about what "rights" they have or there wouldn't be lawsuits
happening to establish exactly what they are.

------
forkrulassail
Does anyone see a gap here for a PatentWar app that runs on Android?

~~~
forkrulassail
Similar to drug wars but no drugs, just pools of patents :)

------
svlla
they already reached a settlement with Amazon last year. MS is going to get
their way with B&N too.

~~~
rbanffy
Sadly, it only enables them to troll even more.

