B&N Responds To Microsoft's Android Suit 175
eldavojohn writes "You're probably familiar with Microsoft's long running assault on Android but, as noticed by Groklaw, Barnes and Noble has fired back saying, 'Microsoft has asserted patents that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded, or non-essential design features, but uses these patents to demand that every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license from Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and expensive patent infringement litigation.' Barnes and Noble goes on to assert that Microsoft violates 'antitrust laws, threatens competition for mobile device operating systems and is further evidence of Microsoft's efforts to dominate and control Android and other open source operating systems.' The PDF of the filing from two days ago is rife with accusations including, 'Microsoft intends to utilize its patents to control the activities of and extract fees from the designers, developers, and manufacturers of devices, including tablets, eReaders, and other mobile devices, that employ the Android Operating System.' and 'Microsoft has falsely and without justification asserted that its patents somehow provide it with the right to prohibit device manufacturers from employing new versions of the Android Operating System, or third party software.' Barnes and Noble does not mince words when explaining Microsoft's FUD campaign to both the public and developers in its attempts to suppress Android. It's good to see PJ still digging through massive court briefs to bring us the details on IP court battles."
outmode (Score:3, Interesting)
When you can't come up with a better product, it's time to call in the lawyers.
Patent protection is valid even if you are not the most qualified or successful at implementing your ideas. indeed that's the point. it is supposed to stifle the competition so that you can be completive yourself or force them to pay you.
How can "outmoded" and "inessential features" be considered a defense against a patent? Isn't that the whole point of a patent? doesn't it describe a feature whose duration of being protected is exactly prescribed? It can't be outmoded during this time by definition. And if the feature is inessential then why did android choose to include it. The whole point of a patent is the right to say "no you can't include that way of doing something".
They don't seem to be arguing that the patent was obvious and incorrectly awarded. Instead they seem to be arguing designs can't be patented because designs are arbitrary. Which again is the whole point of the "design" patent. Unlike a concept patent, a design patent is much narrower protection of arbitrary features.
B&N seems instead to be arguing against patents. Better to make that argument when you are not being sued for violating one.
Are you really that dumb? (Score:4, Interesting)
> What exactly does the european patent office have to do with a US patent suit?
Do you actually believe that European witnesses shouldn't be allowed to testify in US court cases? Because that's approximately what you're saying. The EU patent office found what they believe was prior art and brought this to MS's attention. MS failed to address this in their US patent application.
Re:Patents (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows phone 7 doesn't really seem to fit anywhere...
To the general public, the windows brand is associated with desktop and laptop computers...
I spoke to someone who is entirely non technical, who brought up a "windows phone" they had seen advertised on tv, and then stated they would never consider buying one because "why would i want windows on a phone?"
They believed that a windows phone would be plagued with malware and blue screens of death, basically bringing all the problems from the pc to their mobile. Now while this is an incorrect assumption, that's the assumption people make when they see the brand windows.
These same people are the ones keeping windows alive on the desktop, because they believe it is an inherent part of desktop computing and often either aren't aware of any alternatives existing at all, or are of the belief that linux is for geeks and macos is extremely expensive. For phones on the other hand, these people are already familiar with existing mobile platforms.
To people who have used earlier versions of windows mobile, the brand has often left a bad taste... Earlier versions were clunky and unreliable, and that's a major disincentive to try the current version... I know several people who had windows mobile 6.x devices, and all of them hated it and have since moved to other non microsoft phones.
To people who have decent knowledge of the smartphone market, windows phone 7 is woefully behind all the other offerings and not really worth considering at this point...
And to geeks, windows phone 7 isn't unix, isn't open, and is from a company known for making poor software.
Windows, the very name gives it away, is a desktop gui system... The interface is an extremely poor fit for use with anything other than a mouse and keyboard. The brand should really be kept where its appropriate because the name has negative connotations in any other field....
The xbox was fairly successful, largely because it disassociated itself from the windows brand...