

Microsoft FAT patent loss endangers its Android revenue - tanglesome
http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-fat-patent-loss-endangers-its-android-revenue-7000024103/

======
WildUtah
My speculation from previous report (note: All involved contracts are still
secret.)

Microsoft's earnings from Android trolling are not a matter of public record.
Each agreement M'soft has made is secret.

In fact, there is no strong, solid evidence that M'soft is making any money at
all off Android. When Barnes and Noble's Nook refused to pay the danegeld,
M'soft sued and then settled to avoid discovery. Nook actually got paid by
M'soft in the settlement, though M'soft ended up with considerable control of
the unprofitable Nook in exchange.

Speculation is that HTC agreed to make and market Windows Phone phones instead
of paying royalties. If that kind of agreement was common, it's no wonder that
all the non-Nokia Windows Phone phones were garbage: They were produced under
duress.

Also, my Android 4 devices no longer support any kind of FAT filesystems the
way my Android 2 phones did. I think Google already started making FAT
optional just so as to avoid paying for patents like this one.

~~~
twistedpair
'danegeld' \- what a wonderful word. I didn't realized the vikings invented
trolling.

~~~
r00fus
Given the history of man is several hundreds of thousands of years old, I
doubt the invented it.

However, it seems they might have innovated and popularized it.

It's not unlike the mafia "protection" model, though, is it not? Take a look
at the Crassus model of firefighting [1] which predate the Danes' innovation,
for example.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome)

------
Pxtl
Wait, seriously? That's it? _that 's_ the patent MS uses to force cellphone
manufacturers to pay them for Android? The Dos 8.3 / long filenames thing?
That's insane. It's the obvious solution and not terribly hard to implement in
the first place. The pseudocode for this would be like 5 lines.

~~~
derekp7
What is even more strange, is that modern Android phones (at least the Nexus
line) don't support mounting the internal memory as a fat-32 device -- they
use MTP or PTP for file transfers. So as far as I can tell, there is no reason
for them to use fat-32 internally anymore. Or am I missing something?

~~~
delinka
Of course, they still need to implement FAT-32 if they ever want to mount SD
cards that are interoperable with other phones, cameras, etc.

~~~
JohnTHaller
Which is one reason why the entire Nexus series, Moto G/X, HTC One, etc don't
support SD cards. That and Google wanting everyone to use the cloud.

~~~
Pxtl
What happens if you plug in an SD reader or a FAT-formatted USB stick into the
USB port via OTG? That would still require support for FAT in the OS.

~~~
josteink
It would, but on a default, non-CM Android-build it would also require you to
run StickMount or OTGHelper to mount it somewhere where the apps and OS will
be able to use it.

And for that you may or may not need root. And if you're already there, why
not just use a custom kernel (with FAT support) while you're at it?

~~~
wvenable
Pretty big leap from root to a custom kernel. But on my Nexus 7 with root and
stickmount, the stock kernel does support mounting FAT drives. So support is
baked in there.

~~~
zmmmmm
I guess it comes down to, when you have to jump through enough steps, some of
them unauthorised and requiring the user to install additional software, in
court you can make a reasonable argument that you are not selling the device
with that functionality enabled, therefore you aren't liable for patent
infringement.

------
jamra
Each glaring victory in these patent battles are only eclipsed by the crushing
defeats of losing a patent lawsuit.

New Egg losing one case and potentially having to pay out millions is
devastating.

What do you do as a startup if one of these companies targets you? What do you
do as a company that's been around for a while? Amazon pays out. You would
have to as well. What if you can't pay? America will lose its foothold as the
place for software companies to be grown and nurtured if parasitic behavior
isn't removed from the tool belt of its own corporatations.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
Let's wait for the appeal before we declare any crushing defeats, but you
aren't wrong that software patents are killing innovation.

I think if you're a startup and you don't plan to do VC funding, don't
incorporate in the US. I guess the US courts could enforce an injunction
against your company if you sell to their citizens, though.

~~~
talmand
If you do business inside the US then incorporating outside of it will not
protect you.

Ultimately, the only way to avoid these lawsuits in the US is to not do
business in the US.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
Would the US actually be able to enforce a court decision beyond injunction
against a foreign business located abroad?

~~~
talmand
Doubtful, unless there is some sort of agreement with the host country. But
that wouldn't necessarily stop the troll because if that company ever wanted
to expand into the US, which is still a big market, then they'll have to deal
with the troll sooner or later.

~~~
reginaldjcooper
I would abandon the US market until I had the funding to fight trolls or they
get responsible legislation going. Once foreign corp. X have got the funding I
don't know what would stop a mysterious new US corp. Z from buying access to
the X userbase and APIs with the express purpose of doing the exact same thing
as X but domestically. And then, once the patent business has been cleared up,
merge them. It might have to be as convoluted as X -> unsullied foreign corp.
Y -> Z to launder the relationship but I bet it's possible.

------
jackweirdy
What's more hilarious is that Microsoft make more money from that patent than
their entire revenue from Windows Phone:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/06/german-
pa...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/06/german-patent-
ruling-threatens-microsofts-windows-phone-earnings-from-android/)

~~~
character
"we’re all pretty sure that the Android royalties are larger in that division
than the Windows Phone revenues." -Forbes

Please don't incorrectly paraphrase a speculative comment.

------
mbell
While this is an important patent I believe MS went after Android
manufacturers for around a dozen patents[0] so I'm not convinced this ruling
alone is going to have a large impact on the royalty agreements.

[0] [http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-
andro...](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html)

------
gonvaled
Does this mean MS must pay back royalties? To whom?

~~~
delinka
Not automatically, no. And I'd bet that the contracts (i.e. 'licenses') that
they've agreed to thus far have a clause that prevents the licensee from
seeking a refund should the patents ever be found invalid.

~~~
talmand
Not only that, I'm willing to bet they would have to continue paying the
royalties unless they can get out of the license contract by some legal means.

------
salient
This headline almost makes it seem like this is a bad thing. How about: "FAT
patent invalidation _saves_ Android OEM's from Microsoft's illegitimate rent-
seeking?"

~~~
reginaldjcooper
"FAT patent invalidation reduces Android OEM costs by $3.4 billion globally"

------
fit2rule
More and more, Microsoft are starting to look like "80's IBM" ..

------
mikegioia
Here's the patent for anyone interested:

[http://www.google.com/patents?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,579,517](http://www.google.com/patents?id=cLAkAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,579,517)

------
brosco45
So, do they have to refund the billions they gotten illicitly from trolling?

