Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Microsoft Open Source Patents The Courts Your Rights Online

B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art 332

Posted by Soulskill
from the beware-the-wrath-of-patent-attornies dept.
itwbennett writes "As Slashdot readers will recall, Barnes & Noble is being particularly noisy about the patents Microsoft is leveraging against the Nook. Now the bookseller has filed a supplemental notice of prior art that contains a 43-page list of examples it believes counters Microsoft's claim that Nook violates five of Microsoft's patents. 'The list of prior art for the five patents that Microsoft claims the Nook infringes is very much a walk down memory lane,' says Brian Proffitt. 'The first group of prior art evidence presented by Barnes & Noble for U.S. Patent No. 5,778,372 alone lists 172 pieces of prior art' and 'made reference to a lot of technology and people from the early days of the public Internet... like Mosaic, the NCSA, and (I kid you not) the Arena web browser. The list was like old home week for the early World Wide Web.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

B&N Pummels Microsoft Patent Claims With Prior Art

Comments Filter:
  • First post! (Score:5, Funny)

    by GameboyRMH (1153867) <gameboyrmh@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:45PM (#38101304) Journal

    This post is prior art to everything else in this discussion!

  • by oic0 (1864384) on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:49PM (#38101360)
    If it was this easy to beat them and the prior art was that apparent, why did everyone else bow down and pay to troll his toll?
    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:53PM (#38101410) Journal

      I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

      • by HarrySquatter (1698416) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:06PM (#38101594)

        Yeah because companies like Samsung and HTC never stand up to patent bullying. Oh wait, they do (see Apple countersuits).

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:09PM (#38101652)

          all microsoft wants is money.

          Apple doesn't care about money from patent suits, they are out to see the their competitors burn.

          • by icebike (68054) on Friday November 18, 2011 @04:01PM (#38102310)

            all microsoft wants is money.

            Apple doesn't care about money from patent suits, they are out to see the their competitors burn.

            Microsoft does not care about money. At best they will only obtain 1/3 of the license fees, the rest go to Nokia and the canadian patent troll MOSAID.

            Microsoft wants to make it prohibitively expensive to produce any Android phone.

            • by Tharsman (1364603) on Friday November 18, 2011 @04:38PM (#38102778)

              They know that wont stop Android manufacturers.

              What they want is for Android to lose it's "free" advantage by encoumbering it with patent licesning costs.

              They dont want it to fail off their own merits, just to lose that advantage. A world were some one can get a user friendly OS for free is a world that scares Microsoft. Was true with Linux despite it not being too user friendly, and is even more so with Android, due to it being much more user friendly.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:12PM (#38101688)

          That's only because Apple isn't interested in settling -- the only relief that Apple is seeking is to remove Android from the market.

        • by gl4ss (559668) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:27PM (#38101884) Homepage Journal

          samsung and htc both manufacture ms platforms.

          they get the money fed back to them.

          and htc in particular is an old friend of ms, they manufactured almost all windows mobile phones(even those that were sold under qtek, jasjar etc brands) and probably were in bed with ms in dev side to some extent.

        • by LWATCDR (28044) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:44PM (#38102078) Homepage Journal

          Well if they get into a knock down drag out fight with Microsoft and WP7 and or W8 tablets catch on they could be in big trouble. Samsung also makes PCs and laptops. They really don't want to make Microsoft angry.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Tomato42 (2416694)
          HTC is selling phones with Windows, Samsung is selling computers with Windows, B&N is not selling hardware with MS soft on it. Do the math.
      • by SomePgmr (2021234) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:13PM (#38101698) Homepage
        Someone else suggested it's because they're handset makers that also have WinMo devices (or expect to, at some point).

        B&N, otoh, wouldn't care. They're not in the business of making phones.

        Though I admit that's a bit conspiratorial. And you'd think Google would've fired first...?
        • by javakah (932230) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:37PM (#38101992)

          Not necessarily. It sounded like there was a pretty strict NDA in place. I wouldn't be surprised if it was to keep Google from knowing what the alleged infringing patents were, so Google may not have had a chance to really fight this.

        • by c++0xFF (1758032) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:48PM (#38102124)

          Good news! If I'm reading Groklaw correctly, Google's starting to get involved.

          I think the reason Google hasn't really been involved before is because Microsoft hasn't been attacking them directly. And because companies have just been rolling over, Google hasn't had a chance to back anybody up.

          Google will become involved now that someone is planting their feet, hopefully.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:20PM (#38101782) Journal

        Do they not cover Kipling in law school? They should.

        It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
            To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
        "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
            Unless you pay us cash to go away."

        And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
            And the people who ask it explain
        That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
            And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

        It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
            To puff and look important and to say: --
        "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
            We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

        And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
            But we've proved it again and again,
        That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
            You never get rid of the Dane.

        It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
            For fear they should succumb and go astray;
        So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
            You will find it better policy to say: --

        "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
            No matter how trifling the cost;
        For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
            And the nation that pays it is lost!"

      • by icebike (68054) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:59PM (#38102286)

        I suspect in large part because most companies' lawyers basically tell them "Paying the licensing fee is cheaper and surer means to an end than fighting." So far as I can tell, it basically amounts to a vast conspiracy of legal departments on both sides of the fence.

        Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.

        • Also a possible reason is that B&N is a US company and could go directly after Microsoft in a court of its choice. HTC, Samsung, et al may have subsidiaries here but they are headquartered elsewhere and can't directly access US courts as easily.

          Lawyers do most of the work. It's not like the CEO is personally attending to every mundane court case out there.

          The main reason for the lack of HTC's and Samsung's lack of litigation could be that it isn't wise to bite the hand that feeds you... HTC makes Windo

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:54PM (#38101434)

      They haven't beaten them, they still need to draaaaag this through the courts, which MS will certainly ensure this is very very costly and last for years. I.e. even though MS are likely to be full of shit, they have a bigger cash pile than almost anyone else which will ensure most companies don't try to fight it, and take the easy licensing options. In legal terms, it's called a shake-down. The mafia used it rather well.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I just hope Google will stand behing B&N on this one and provide the much need help. Google could push MS down without putting much of a dent in their cash.

        • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:08PM (#38101640) Journal

          The issue always is time and money. Battling crap patents held by large companies like Microsoft will take years and cost a significant amount of money. Even if you win and somehow manage to get damages, they won't cover the whole bill, and you've spent two or three or even more years in a sort of limbo. You can readily understand why many manufacturers have just said "Fuck it" and paid Microsoft to go away. I'm amazed that B&N is fighting this, because I cannot imagine their lawyers were advising them that this was the way to go.

          • I can't imagine why people don't contract lawyers and insist on the lawyers recovering their legal fees. Shall you win I will pay you up to $X and then beyond that 10% of your legal fees only up to $Y, and you shall independently pursue the plaintiff for recovery of your legal expenses; shall you lose, you shall receive at most $a (less than $X, or maybe a very low rate). We shall provide documentation of agreed upon legal rates and all agreements related to said legal case; you shall supply justification

          • by rkhalloran (136467) on Friday November 18, 2011 @04:05PM (#38102358) Homepage

            The difference between the B&N case and the various handset/tablet makers is that the latter can just add the MS danegeld to the consumers' final bill, where for B&N the Nook is simply an 'enabler' for their main business of selling you reading materials. They want to hold down the cost to hook you easier and recoup their costs quicker. Why pay royalties to MS on what B&N sees as basically a digital shopping bag?

          • by Jeng (926980) on Friday November 18, 2011 @04:05PM (#38102362)

            B&N's brick and mortar stores are going to close up and blow away.

            B&N knows that they have to start distributing their titles via electronic means. This is their future, if they just rolled over they may as give up and declare bankruptcy.

            So they have a chance if they are successful, but fucked if they don't, so they must try or die.

        • You do realize that Microsoft has nearly double the assets (108 billion vs 57 billion), 10 billion more in equity and 15 billion more in cash/cash equivalents/securities than Google, right? It would be even less of a dent to them.

        • by oakgrove (845019)
          Quick, does Barnes & Noble have anything Google can "license" when the going gets tough like MS did for SCO?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:57PM (#38101468)

      Most of them were cell phone makers who were, while paying to make Android phones, getting a bigger stipend to develop Windows Phone 7 phones.
      B&N has no interesting in making WP7 based tablet. They choose Android because it was a fairly mature, stable, and most importantly, FREE.

    • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:58PM (#38101482) Journal
      Probably because the other companies asked their lawyers, who looked at how my MS could spend in court and said 'it's cheaper to settle', while B&N asked their developers who looked at the patents and said 'haha! These patents are ridiculous!' I doubt many companies employ lawyers who have the ability to judge the merits of the patents, which is part of the reason why patent trolling is so lucrative: the people making the decision to pay are lawyers and CxOs who will assume that a granted patent means a valid patent.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:59PM (#38101504)

      Because they're device manufacturers. They're used to this sort of patent abuse; they pay the $10 or whatever and move on with life. I mean, they're doing it for their WP7 phones, it's not like $10 will destroy the handset's profit margin.

      B&N, on the other hand, is a bookstore. They picked Android specifically so they wouldn't have to pay a license fee on every device they sell, especially not to someone who had nothing to do with it. They have a legal team that's used to dealing with IP issues; they're a bookstore, IP stuff comes up from time to time. They're not used to being pushed around like this; they're usually the ones doing the pushing around against publishers. They aren't going to just lay back and put up with it.

      • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:20PM (#38101784) Journal

        All the other tech companies are used to dealing with Microsoft itself as partner, either for a product or in commitee. B&N probably has no relationship with MS other then as an end customer of Windows. Now that alone is enough to fuel a bitter hatred.

        But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.

        Meanwhile MS has in one move ruined ALL its attempts to appear as if it wasn't the old evil MS anymore. The MS apologists who claim MS is no longer against openess or unwilling to play fair... well... they got to crawl back under the rock they came from and claim that this time MS Mobile Windows Phone Gazillion will be it!

        • by Junta (36770) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:36PM (#38101986)

          But basically, B&N has nothing to loose. If they loose they have to pay the same fee as if they didn't. It is not as if MS can hurt them in any other way.

          Well, they do have something to lose. If they lose, Microsoft will seek a more drastic action. I think the assumption is they feel confident they can win, and if other companies reached the same conclusion that they could 'win' in court, they would still 'lose' on their business relationship.

    • by reimero (194707) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:15PM (#38101718)

      Essentially it went down like this:
      MS> Android infringes some of our patents, but if you pay our fee, you can use it.
      Potential licensee> What patents does Android infringe?
      MS> You'll need to sign an NDA for further discussion.

      Companies sign the NDA, and then they're legally obligated not to comment on the specific patents. Microsoft likely doesn't actually expect to win this one. Microsoft expects to send a message that they're willing to enter costly litigation, which would likely be more expensive and more of a hassle than simply paying the licensing fee.

      • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:43PM (#38102072) Journal
        I'm not signing an NDA because I'm being sent a Cease and Desist about shit that I'm not being informed about. You can't C&D me without telling me what you want me to C&D. When you raise lawsuit, I will tell the judge that you refused to inform me on what was the problem, and so I declined to enter in legal contracts under vague threats.
      • by c++0xFF (1758032) on Friday November 18, 2011 @04:00PM (#38102302)

        And in the meantime, the patents they bring out will probably be invalidated.

        Well, that certainly explains why the patents they're using in this suit are so laughable. Disposable ammunition.

      • by Svartalf (2997)

        Doesn't work that way. Not letting me see the alleged infringements except under NDA doesn't fall under what is expected of the Infringed with regards to Patents. You HAVE to give an opportunity to remediate the problem- and not with those sorts of shackles. If I don't know what I was infringing, how am I supposed to stop?

    • by Junta (36770)

      Think about the companies they went after to date. Samsung and HTC both partner with microsoft on endeavours outside of Android (laptops and windows mobile). For both of those companies, caving in may have been considered a safer move from a business relationship move.

      Now B&N has absolutely no worries about being penalized on a business relationship they simply do not have. It's worth it for them to fight.

    • by Gerzel (240421)

      Court lawyer fees.

      That's how the legal system all too often works these days. The monetary cost of raising a case, even if you are on the side of right, is far more expensive than paying off the extortion.

    • by Riceballsan (816702) on Friday November 18, 2011 @04:02PM (#38102328)
      Most likely the way Microsoft cut deals with everyone. I believe the rumor is that microsoft tells the phone manufacturers every dollar they spend on the android patents, will come back to them in free WP8 licenses/marketing for windows phones etc... So basically for the other companies the options are A. Spend money on invalidating it, receive no refund, B. Spend money on something you don't need, get it all back. More or less without fighting they lose nothing unless WP8 completely fails to sell at all. Think of it as if you had a utility company, the electic company says you need to pay them $20 a month for your internet access they don't provide, but they will subtract $20 from your power bill. Does it matter to you? B&N and Amazon would be the few companies that have motivation to fight it, Microsoft has nothing to offer them unless B&N wants to make a windows powered reader later on as well.
      • More or less without fighting they lose nothing unless WP8 completely fails to sell at all.

        More insidiously on Microsoft's part, the agreement also has the effect of giving the phone manufacturers a more vested interest in having WP8 be successful.

  • by ackthpt (218170) on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:50PM (#38101372) Homepage Journal

    Much was made of Bill Gates failure to recognise the prominent role the Web would play when he rolled out his book(!) The Road Ahead. Not to surprised the company seems to go around blinkered. Though much of the IP they're claiming is not used for visionary purposes, as this assault on Android illustrates, it's venal.

    • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:23PM (#38101826) Journal
      Well, gates has a false legacy all around him. For starters, he was not the one that picked DOS. IBM did. Later on, Gates bought the rights to Unix, merged it with DOS and then sold Xenix on 286s. When it had zero performance, it was others that pointed out how foolish he was. ANother set of employees had to convince him to stick with DOS and skip Xenix. Then gates ran around screaming that 640K was more than enough. The net we all know about. I mean it continues on and on and on. The man was NOT that bright. Just in the right places at the right time, with the right ppl.

      Sadly, since MS has such a dearth of talent (esp. with that idiot balmer), they have to resort to illegal tactics.
  • Fraud (Score:5, Interesting)

    by the eric conspiracy (20178) on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:50PM (#38101380)

    I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Desler (1608317)

      You mean except for the fact that the patent in the summary DOES mention a number of examples of the claimed prior art in its background section? For example, it specifically mentions Mosiac in it. So what fraud do you mean?

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      I find it inconceivable that Microsoft's technologists did not know of this prior art. Since patent law requires that prior art be disclosed at the time the patent application is filed, and not doing so is a violation of law sometimes turned patent fraud, I think the DOJ should go after these rat bastards for these violations.

      Microsoft's early hires probably knew all about it, standing around the water cooler reminiscing the good old days when they used a mouse on a drafting board on some ancient single use computing device. Then the legal department showed up and told them to shut up about knowing such things as they were busy patenting them hand over fist, like they had just invented these technologies.

    • Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Overzeetop (214511) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:07PM (#38101604) Journal

      More to the point, anyone skilled in the art should have know of such things - including any competent patent reviewer.

      • Re:Incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)

        by suutar (1860506) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:40PM (#38102032)
        and there we find the problem. Competent patent reviewers (especially in the numbers needed) cost more than the PTO can afford, especially with Congress siphoning off much of their revenue (from patent applications). So you get either too few good ones or many not-so-good ones, and either way they can't handle the workload.
        • Not only that, they give you time limits on searches. They'll only pay you for e.g. 2 hours to search for prior art for a patent application. And of course, if you do a search and it returns 5000 seemingly relevant results, you haven't the slightest hope of so much as reading the abstracts of all of them in the time allotted, much less doing a thorough job.

    • Re:Fraud (Score:4, Informative)

      by Salamander (33735) <jeff.pl@atyp@us> on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:15PM (#38101714) Homepage Journal

      It probably has something to do with the difference between claims and description in a patent application. Claims are the part that matter. Often the claims are constructed so they *just barely* pass the obviousness test, e.g. by taking two ideas that are too obvious by themselves, but combining them in a way that's less obvious. The description can then be far more general, and is often shared between many patents, but that doesn't affect the validity of the claims *at all*. To determine the validity of a patent you have to look very carefully at what is being claimed, and only refer to the description as background to understand the claims.

      Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't give legal advice. I've just been through this nearly a dozen times.

    • Re:Fraud (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The Great Pretender (975978) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:36PM (#38101982)
      I was having a similar conversation with one of our Patent Attorney's the other day. We wanted to file something, but the landscape analysis deemed there may be prior art. His advice, don't worry about it, it'll cost more for someone to challenge and highly unlikely that they'll waste their time. Sadly, we went ahead and filed and didn't worry about it, contrary to my request for a better legal opinion.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @02:57PM (#38101474)

    I have to wonder if because B&N are from a different field, where the BS of software patents isn't prevalent, that they're approaching this with a more reasoned perspective than traditional tech. companies do. That is, most software is pretty much the same fucking thing as 20 years ago, and letting people patent shit for tacking on the phrase "on the internet" or "on a tablet" is fucking ridiculous. Thus they have a huge laundry list of examples. Then again, it could be pure naiveté and a losing strategy, as judges are generally even more inept at making reasoned assessments of technology than the utterly incompetent and over-burdened patent clerks, and might do better with only a few examples.

    Or perhaps this just stems from B&N not having the same paradoxical "we hate software patents because they hurt us but love them because they let us bully others" attitude of say Google or MS or Apple. Either way, fight the good fight B&N. You'll probably lose, but you're right.

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:01PM (#38101528) Journal

      I don't know if there is anything beyond the fact that B&N doesn't want to go forward with someone perpetually having a hand in their pocket. I'll wager their lawyers are screaming bloody murder about this, and certainly as a short-term strategy, it's probably better just to pay Microsoft's extortion demands, but in the long-term, if you trash Microsoft's crap patents, you deny them any involvement in your affairs.

  • Perfect move by B&N (Score:5, Interesting)

    by future assassin (639396) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:00PM (#38101518) Homepage

    Looks like they did their homework and so did their lawers. Even if they were not to win this is a HUGE way to attract customers to their hardware/online stores especially when they win. You couldn't get a more massive good will gesture then this especially before christmas shopping holiday.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:03PM (#38101548)

    Come on Samsung, and Google. Patents were supposed to spur innovation, not squash competition. The system is broken.

  • by WindBourne (631190) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:05PM (#38101580) Journal
    This will sound dumb, but what about the other companies that cut deals with MS? Can they back out of it and sue MS? It would be interesting to see law suits started against MS again, but this time, make it in multiple nations.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:05PM (#38101584)

    That's it, everyone in my family gets a Nook this year.

    Anyone care to recommend the Simple Touch, Color, or Tablet and the pro's and con's? Links to good reviews are sufficient.

    • by Daetrin (576516) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:21PM (#38101796)
      The Simple Touch is great if your primary interest is an eReader. My girlfriend just got one and it works great for that. Using Calibre i was even able to transfer over a little more than half the books she'd already bought from Amazon on her phone. (I'm still looking into how to handle the rest of the books.)

      On the other hand if you want a more tablet like experience you should go with the Color or Tablet. Given the marginal price difference i think the Tablet is the best buy. It's probably a tough decision for those who already have a Color to decide whether to upgrade or not, but that doesn't seem to be where you're at. In both cases it seems like "rooting" it is a simple case of installing Cyanogen on a SD card and plugging it in, something i think most people on Slashdot can probably handle.

      Here's one review i found [msn.com] though it's focused more on the differences between the Nook Tablet and the Amazon Kindle Fire, and gloomily predicting that the Kindle will overshadow despite the Nook's superior hardware.
      • by Microlith (54737)

        In both cases it seems like "rooting" it is a simple case of installing Cyanogen on a SD card and plugging it in, something i think most people on Slashdot can probably handle.

        Sadly, it's unlikely Cyanogen will happen for the Nook Tablet as they've put in the effort to cripple the device with a signed bootloader and checksummed kernel. Much like all the crippled Motorola handsets, the best you'll be able to do is workarounds and half solutions.

  • by Oswald McWeany (2428506) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:06PM (#38101600)

    With news from opera that they have duplicated the faster than light neutrinos does that mean that future art is now as valid a defense as prior art?

  • Prior art is any publication (or product) that is in the relevant industry (i.e. "art") that is "prior". That's it... That something is prior art doesn't mean it invalidates the patent. To invalidate a patent claim, you need to find either one piece of prior art that anticipates the claim - i.e. discloses, either explicitly or inherently, each and every element in the claim; or find a combination of multiple pieces of prior art that, in combination, teaches or suggests each and every feature of the claim (thus showing that the claim would be obvious to one with access to the art that existed at the time of filing).

    So, yes, everything listed by B&N is prior art, but it's not necessarily all art that anticipates Microsoft's patents, or even necessarily renders them obvious. This is merely a list of prior art generated by a keyword search... B&N hasn't yet said which piece or pieces of art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each element of the claims. In fact, they explicitly note that some of the references Moreover, while the prior art references listed below are categorized by patent-in-suit, the references listed relate "to the general knowledge".

    Basically, it's a bit premature to claim that the list counters the patents. It may, once they've been mapped to the claims, but until then, it's just a list of art.

  • by AftanGustur (7715) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:17PM (#38101752) Homepage
    My wife wants a e-reader and when I saw what the new B&N Nook Reader can do I wanted to buy two. But it appears that B&N doesn't do business in Europe..

    So, sorry B&N, you would have gotten 2 new customers if you would just sell your books and stuff to Europe.

    • by LWATCDR (28044)

      Media deals. Publishing is just so odd and backwards when it comes to the modern world. You often have to get a different set of deals for every market. I do not if the EU would require just an EU deal or one per country.
      That is one of the reasons that the US is so important as a market. It is one big market.

  • by TrueSpeed (576528) on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:31PM (#38101922)

    Google should make a change to their Android licensing terms. If you want a licence to the Google services or to even use Android commercially you must allow your patent portfolio to be used to defend the Android OS. With other companies in collusion and forming patent pools to attack Android this seems the best solution to smack down these patent trolls.

  • by hercubus (755805) <hercubus@@@yahoo...com> on Friday November 18, 2011 @03:49PM (#38102150) Homepage

    The Nook Tablet (unrooted) is slightly more open than the Kindle Fire (unrooted)

    Some links:

    My takeaway is if you have your gold geek card, get the Fire (less money) and root it. If you're less adventuresome, get the Nook for more openness, but get an micro-SD card or you're stuck with only 1GB of free memory.

  • Don't forget that browser was one of the first (in 1995) to support the CSS drafts that existed at the time (first dating back to October 1994! [google.com]).

Brain fried -- Core dumped

Working...