

Microsoft's FUD goes mobile - yanw
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/28/microsoft_mobile_sued/

======
fr0man
This isn't FUD; this is just business. They didn't even sue HTC. If MSFT
infringed on a patent of Google's, you can bet Google would be taking the
exact same approach.

~~~
acg
Perhaps not FUD, but I think not releasing what exactly is infringing is
suspicious to many.

I've not noticed that Google is particularly litigious: perhaps as the company
gets older it will enter the ethos.

I can understand software patents when your competition poaches your staff,
but it seems a little unjustified years later because you happened for have an
idea first.

Imagine if Novell acted this way.

~~~
tzs
"Perhaps not FUD, but I think not releasing what exactly is infringing is
suspicious to many"

Why? Think about it from the patent licensee's point of view. You are paying a
patent owner money for permission to practice one or more of their patents.

Why would you want to tell your competitors what those patents are? So they
can look at them and make sure they work around them, and so don't end up
having to license them, and so get to offer their competing products at a
lower cost than yours?

~~~
acg
That could be a little inaccurate. In this case you create a product using and
open-source product and an industry player comes along saying Linux infringes
on it's patent portfolio heavily. But this infringement was unproven:
Microsoft may not have a case.

This looks like extortion--- where product makers rather than face down
Microsoft, accept that they must pay. It it likely that HTC does not think it
has too much choice as part of the market for their phone is windows mobile.

Many patents could be claimed on any device built now, you don't see IBM,
Novell and Oracle lining up.

------
rbanffy
Well... Guess I will not buy an HTC phone. I'll not support a company that
gives in to empty threats or blackmail.

~~~
DrJokepu
To be fair, it's not like there were an awful lot of people for whom "giving
in to empty threats or blackmail" is a point to be considered when purchasing
a mobile phone, so if they changed their patent licencing practices based on
your opinion, they would be "giving in to empty threats or blackmail" as well.

~~~
rbanffy
Your reasoning is flawed. My threat would only be empty if I were to buy an
HTC handset. Since I won't, it's not an empty threat. I intend to follow
through.

It's, however, not a substantial threat, unless growing a spine becomes a
requirement for selling mobile phones. This, unfortunately, is not going to
happen anytime soon. Yet, I feel I should take a stand, as principles matter.

Too bad. I would respect them more if they bought Palm. That would probably
make them own a lot of patents both Apple and Microsoft cross-license.

------
billybob
My take: Microsoft can't make a mobile OS that doesn't suck, so they want to
leech income from those who can, using the power of Extremely Broad Software
Patents.

I don't see this as a story about new and interesting alliances of enemies. I
see it as a story about substituting litigation for innovation.

~~~
ajross
Actually, Microsoft _does_ make a mobile OS that "doesn't suck", at least in
the sense that it's a mobile OS that HTC wants to sell on their own devices.

This is just price negotiation inside an existing business relationship,
nothing more. It's true that MS used this trick in the 90's in ways that were
anticompetitive (Dell paying MS for every computer sold meant that they had no
incentive to bundle other operating systems), but that's not the situation
here.

------
fname
Might offer some additional insight into this:
[http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/28/microsoft-htc-android-
apple...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/28/microsoft-htc-android-apple-
patents)

------
moron4hire
not a lot of details to go on here, there's no telling what the issue actually
is.

~~~
thmz
This might be the case:

\- HTC agrees to sell MS phones only

\- They also agree to pay MS when they start selling other brands

\- They start selling other brands

\- They pay MS as agreed

~~~
misterbwong
I'm inclined to agree with this theory. Ironically, much of this article is
also FUD. i.e.

 _The deal could be seen as a veiled threat to other handset makers choosing
Android - if they don't have such an agreement in place then presumably
Microsoft is at liberty to sue them for patent infringement?_

theregister fails to take into consideration that MS is a longstanding partner
of HTC's and that HTC was making WM phones almost exclusively until the last
year or two. It's very likely that this is the result of an agreement made
long ago.

------
tvon
Or perhaps, Microsoft and HTC enter into deal to help combat Apple.

