

MS going after ChromeOS on patents too - jfruh
http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/215897/microsoft-why-innovate-when-you-can-litigate

======
bodski
Microsoft seems to be getting more and more barefaced about this as time goes
on.

Only the other day patent 'analyst' Florian Mueller disclosed funding from
Microsoft to write a report on FRAND licensing. He then subsequently admitted
that he and Microsoft _"...have worked together more than once, but that
because of a confidentiality agreement with the company, he can’t elaborate on
the details of that relationship..."_ [1].

Microsoft never really changed their spots, they just switched tactics.

[1] [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-is-patent-
expertblogger-f...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-is-patent-
expertblogger-florian-mueller-getting-too-cozy-with-microsoft/)

~~~
aespinoza
I have to agree with you on this. I have been a Microsoft supporter on most of
their enterprises, but the tactics have to change.This is the kind of things
that mess up the technology industry.

~~~
wanorris
Why? Companies go right on selling Android and Chrome products when it makes
sense for them to do so, but pay Microsoft royalties in order to license their
IP. It was reported recently that half of all Android devices now generate a
royalty to Microsoft, yet this doesn't seem to have harmed the popularity and
overall market success of Android in the slightest.

As tactics go, this seems much less destructive to the technology industry
than Apple's attempts to get products they believe use their IP banned
outright.

Am I missing something?

~~~
jsnell
If other companies with these two-bit patents managed to extort as large
amounts of money from the phone manufacturers, it'd become impossible to make
Android phones at competitive prices. There isn't much difference between that
and outright banning.

~~~
wanorris
Are you sure they are really all two-bit patents? Microsoft has been making
mobile devices since the era of "handheld PCs" back in the mid 90s, and
smartphones -- starting with Pocket PC Phone Edition -- since 2002. It would
be surprising if they _didn't_ have a strong IP portfolio in the area.

P.S. (not directed at you, jsnell) Is there really anything that warrants
downvoting my original post other than an unpopular viewpoint?

~~~
aespinoza
> P.S. (not directed at you, jsnell) Is there really anything that warrants
> downvoting my original post other than an unpopular viewpoint?

That is exactly why I don't look at the karma points. :D

------
nextparadigms
What's the saddest thing, is that companies actually accept to pay without
testing Microsoft's theory in Court. And the more they accept, the worse is
becomes for others, too. Microsoft is even being sneaky about it. I'm pretty
sure Samsung wasn't at a loss financially when they accepted the deal. But it
was still a big win for Microsoft, because they could then go around and tell
others "Look, _even_ Samsung paid!".

Sorry, but Microsoft is pathetic. License actual products and services like
ActiveSync. Stop licensing BS patents that are useless to those companies once
they pay up. What's wrong with the patent system is that companies have to pay
to not get sued, not to license the technology. And why would they, when there
are such BS patents.

If Microsoft has such awesome "technology" and patents, then why aren't they
disclosing them so others don't have to "infringe" on them later? Yeah,
because they know the patents are BS and they wouldn't stand to scrutiny even
for a day.

------
nitrogen
Why is it that the independent creation of one company (ChromeOS), somewhat
based on ideas expressed in the mid to late 90s by Netscape (the web and
browser should replace the desktop) and earlier by Sun (the network is the
computer), can be found to infringe the patents of a copycat company
(Microsoft, who integrated IE into the desktop while/after killing Netscape)?
Or in other words, how is it ethically acceptable for one company or
individual to claim ownership of the independent creation of another?

OT: The constantly-updating stream of new user signups in the "IT World Live"
section on the right of the page was _incredibly_ distracting. I had to resize
my browser window to hide it in order to read the article.

~~~
tedunangst
I think we would need to know more about the patent in question before we can
determine whether it was first invented by netscape or microsoft.

~~~
nitrogen
I agree. That's another problem with the current system -- secret settlemnts
that affect us all, but only the parties can read, preventing Linux devs or
Google from working around the problem.

However, even if the "invention" in question originated at Microsoft, it may
have been obvious given work done by Netscape, Sun, academia, etc.

------
powertower
Before you start bashing, consider that Microsoft might actually hold at least
1 legitimate patent that is being clearly infringed on.

The "cocky", "full of vim and vinegar", "victory-lap", "bellicose", "braggado
and preening", "celebrating" legal team blog post that this author is refering
to:

[http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...](http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2011/10/23/microsoft-
s-new-patent-agreement-with-compal-a-new-milestone-for-our-android-licensing-
program.aspx)

...seems to be everything but that, and very professional.

~~~
azakai
> Before you start bashing, consider that Microsoft might actually hold at
> least 1 legitimate patent that is being clearly infringed on.

Isn't a big part of the problem that they "might" have such a patent, but we
can't know?

In other words, if you enter a market Microsoft cares about, you may find
Microsoft lawyers at your door with demands. But you can't tell __before __you
make a huge investment and enter that market. You can write all your own code
from scratch, make a terrific product, and you still don't know if Microsoft
can sue you or not.

How does this benefit innovation?

~~~
arebop
My understanding is that you have a non-trivial software project, you can
count on infringing many patents; it's best to assume that Microsoft (among
many other wealthy companies with large patent portfolios) can indeed sue you
and win. Your best bet is to _be_ one of these big patent holders with lots of
money, and then you can be protected by mutually assured destruction.

------
rjd
Its hard to think this is a balanced article when the title is: "Microsoft:
Why innovate when you can litigate?"

Because to be in the position they are in to be able to litigate involves
having innovated first. The modern MS is well known for its R&D and
innovation.

And lastly does anyone expect anything different from MS? they have a solid
history of using the courts as a way of dealing with competitors.

------
RexRollman
The article says that ChromeOS is based on Ubuntu but I am pretty certain that
it is based on Gentoo (or at least uses Gentoo tools to build). Does anyone
know for sure?

~~~
justinschuh
Chrome OS is currently based on Gentoo. Ubuntu was used originally, but as I
remember the switch happened early on due to Gentoo's better support for
cross-compilation.

------
radarsat1
Can we just stop using FAT already?

------
suivix
Why is there both ChromeOS and Android? I never understood that.

~~~
RexRollman
Because they do different things.

~~~
suivix
Windows 8 will run on different devices, so your statement is not correct. I
rate it 6/10.

------
brudgers
> _"One example: the post, chock full of information on Microsoft's latest
> patent score, included a chart that also detailed Apple's and Oracle's
> separate lawsuits against Google's Android, which seems to all but confirm
> Google's assertions all of this Android litigation is all part of a
> coordinated effort."_

One could argue that it speaks more to Google's well entrenched attitude
toward IP.

Suspicion regarding Android is somewhat justified given Google's history of
using other people's content to sell advertising (e.g. displaying copyrighted
material without license as part of image search) or their opt-out approach to
copyright protection of books as they scan them and place them online.

Given that there is little evidence of a clean room reverse engineering
approach by Google when it comes to Android, it is unsurprising that big
players suspect patent infringement - and each of the claims is at least
plausible.

~~~
gvb
Your statement "Given that there is little evidence of a clean room reverse
engineering approach by Google when it comes to Android, it is unsurprising
that big players suspect patent infringement..." is a non sequitur.

Clean room reverse engineering is a technique to avoid _copyright_ and _trade
secret_ infringements. Patents cannot be avoided by clean room reverse
engineering.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design>

