
Google: Microsoft uses patents when products "stop succeeding" - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/11/google-microsoft-uses-patents-when-products-stop-succeeding.ars
======
Tsagadai
Some of their links are broken. The original memo by Bill Gates is a more
interesting read than the article:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20070105162133/http://www.bralyn....](http://web.archive.org/web/20070105162133/http://www.bralyn.net/etext/literature/bill.gates/challenges-
strategy.txt)

------
idspispopd
There is no doubt the landscape has changed, sure when Microsoft was in it's
infancy software patents weren't an issue. However the market at the time was
also incredibly small, and it didn't stop Apple from suing Microsoft in the
ill-fated look and feel lawsuits.

While the system definitely requires reform, it is the one in place and
ignoring software patents is not a worthwhile strategy. Google have been on
the sour end of numerous patent lawsuits from companies that seemingly have no
other agenda than software patent litigation. Meanwhile Google may be critical
of microsoft/apple/oracle, but their own intellectual property is also
protected from these companies. Which is probably why google has always
presented an ambiguous viewpoint towards software patents, and is indeed stock
piling them as well.

Google are guilty of much lip-service against software patents, seemingly
using the issue to dissent against their competitors and to feign an underdog
status.

<http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Google> provides further details on Google's
ambiguity towards software patents.

------
josefresco
How is Ms attacking Linux evidence that they stopped succeeding? I'd say they
succeeded quite well in the desktop OS world.

~~~
hello_moto
How about the server arena?

~~~
thefreehunter
I wouldn't say they're not succeeding there. They're not #1, but servers have
never been one of their main focuses. I'm sure they would love to be #1, but
Windows on the desktop and Microsoft Office makes them oodles of money
already.

~~~
xradionut
Really? Have you ever looked at their quarterly earnings reports? They have a
itty-bitty segment called "Server and Tools" that posted $4.25 billion in
first quarter revenue.

~~~
anamax
Microsoft's total revenue in the quarter that just ended was $17.4B.

I don't have the server and tools breakout, but $4.5B is less than 26%.

$4.5B is a large number, it's even large enough to be significant to microsoft
(however, it wouldn't be significant for walmart), but it's not essential.

~~~
kooshball
4.5B out of 17.4B is 25.8% of total revenue. What business are you in that 25%
of revenue is not essential?

For others who haven't seen the numbers, here is their latest 8K
[http://idc.api.edgar-
online.com/efx_dll/edgarpro.dll?FetchFi...](http://idc.api.edgar-
online.com/efx_dll/edgarpro.dll?FetchFilingConvPDF1?SessionID=-uT_FEpR9TUXKfS&ID=8197031)

    
    
      Three Months Ended September 30, Revenue
    
      Windows & Windows Live Division             $  4,868
      Server and Tools                               4,250
      Online Services Division                         625
      Microsoft Business Division                    5,622
      Entertainment and Devices Division             1,963
      Unallocated and other                             44
    
      Consolidated                               $  17,372

~~~
anamax
> 4.5B out of 17.4B is 25.8% of total revenue

And 25.8% is "less than 26%", as I said.

> What business are you in that 25% of revenue is not essential?

Lots of biz have 30% variations in revenue. In fact, it wasn't so long ago
that MS' revenue was 30% less that it is today. It was even less long ago that
Google's revenue was 50% less than it is today.

If that revenue was essential, neither company would be alive today.

Yes, both are happier with that revenue, but it wouldn't kill them to lose it.

------
sixtofour
"Indeed, the idea of patents on software alarmed Bill Gates, who wrote in 1991
(when Microsoft was already older than Google is now) that "the industry would
be at a complete standstill" if software had been eligible for patent
protection in the early days of the industry."

So now we have software patents. Is the industry now at a complete standstill?
Or from the other direction, what would the industry look like now, if there
software patents hadn't been allowed.

Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now,
what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?

~~~
orangecat
_Is the industry now at a complete standstill?_

No, but only because software patents have largely been unenforced. That's
changing.

 _Or to ask in yet another slightly different way: what are we missing now,
what's been taken away from us, because of software patents?_

If Apple has their way, the only significant mobile OS that doesn't mandate a
walled garden. (Microsoft is actually better off keeping Android alive;
parasites don't benefit by killing their host).

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_"software patents have largely been unenforced."_

I don't think that's the case. However, it doesn't often come to ugly lawsuits
because most of those software patents can be licensed. For instance, Apple
licensed Amazon's 1-Click Purchasing patent. If it hadn't, Amazon would've
likely sued over it. [1]

This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off
Android than on its own mobile endeavors.

The big problem Android makers encounter with Apple is that it has no interest
in licensing its software patents to them. Apple simply does not want them
using any of its ideas.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click>

~~~
nextparadigms
"This method is working out great for Microsoft, which makes more money off
Android than on its own mobile endeavors."

You're making it sound as if it's a _good_ thing Microsoft makes money on stop
they didn't actually build themselves.

~~~
JoshTriplett
A quote I've heard a few times, but which I can't seem to find the origin of:
"Genius is 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. Patents are a
tool for doing the 1 percent, waiting for someone else to do the 99 percent,
and then suing them."

