How Google Drove Samsung Away

itwbennett writes "The patent licensing agreement between Microsoft and Samsung this week set off a firestorm of childish tit-for-tat between Microsoft and Google. But more telling is what Samsung had to say about its relationship with Google: 'Samsung knows it can't rely on Google. We've decided to address Android IP issues on our own,' a Samsung official told The Korea Times. The only good news to come from all of this, says blogger Brian Proffitt, is that we may be headed for a courtroom showdown over just what patents Microsoft believes are in violation, which really is what should have happened to begin with." Update: 09/30 20:05 GMT by S : As it turns out, the so-called "Samsung official" cited by The Korea Times turned out to be patent blogger Florian Mueller.

Re:Why support the lawyers?

[andydread]

This is about PUBLIC information. They would not even discuss what public patents were being violated. It is not common practice to sign an NDA to disclose public information. Sign a NDA to disclose to me what patents I am violating? And you think this is right? Patents filed are public and the reason for patents to begin with is to make information public. Forcing people to sign NDA so you can tell them which public patents are being violated is underhanded and egregious. I don't see how you can support this particular activity.

I quote Barnes And Noble statement on the matter below

At the meeting, Microsoft alleged that the Nook infringed six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. Microsoft had prepared claim charts purportedly detailing the alleged infringement but insisted that it would only share the detailed claim charts if Barnes & Noble agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) that would cover the claim charts as well as all other aspects of the parties’ discussions. Noting that the patents were public and that the infringement allegations pertained to Barnes & Noble’s public product, Barnes & Noble refused to sign an NDA. Insisting that an NDA was necessary, Microsoft discussed the alleged infringement on a high level basis only. Microsoft nevertheless maintained that it possessed patents sufficient to dominate and entirely preclude the use of the Android Operating System by the Nook. Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the Nook device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted “more like a computer” as opposed to an eReader. After sending the proposed license agreement, Microsoft confirmed the shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding, reiterating its exorbitant per device royalty for Nook, and for the first time demanding a royalty for Nook Color which was more than double the per device royalty Microsoft was demanding for Nook. On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7.

Re:Why support the lawyers?

[webheaded]

Source? I've never EVER heard this before. You can't claim something like this where no one else in the entire comments of the article backs it up and not give us some kind of source.

Re:FUD rules everything around me.

[Anonymous Coward]

B&N refused to sign Microsoft's NDA and did make a partial[*] list public: "U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,372 (the “’372 patent”), 6,339,780 (the “’780 patent”), 5,889,522 (the “’522 patent”), 6,891,551 (the “’551 patent”), and 6,957,233 (the “’233 patent”)."

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110427052238659

* [citation needed], but, IIRC, at first it was like:
                MS: you infringe X patents
                BN: which ones
                MS: NDA first
                BN: no
                MS: you infringe X patents
                BN: which ones
                MS: NDA!
                BN: no!
                MS: ... ... ...
                MS: you infringe patents
                BN: which ones
                MS: here's a list
                [that list only had 5 patents listed not the X (X>5) they first threatened about]