Nikon Buckles To Microsoft, Will Pay "Android Tax" For Smart Cameras 272
walterbyrd writes with news that Nikon is the latest company to agree to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using Android on its devices — as you might expect from Nikon, the devices in this case are cameras. (Microsoft's press release.)
Confusing press release without context (Score:5, Informative)
Here's some info on the patents that Microsoft claims android is in violation of:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/070611-microsoft-android.html [networkworld.com]
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because we've always felt these were valid here on Slashdot:
Patents 5,579,517 and 5,758,352, issued in 1996, "relate to implementing both long and short file names in the same file system,"
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Canon here I come (Score:4, Informative)
I don't really know anything about (semi-)professional photography, but I always assumed objectives from different manufacturers were compatible. Can't you use your old glass with the new, different camera?
Camera manufacturers lock you in with proprietary hardware interfaces, so in general you can't mix and match between different companies. They also try and keep backwards compatibility within their own brand and Nikon supposedly has one of the best backward compatibility with its lenses of the major 35mm camera manufacturers.
Re:Confusing press release without context (Score:5, Informative)
Re-posting this as a non-AC so that everyone sees it:
"And as a follow-up to that article from 1.5 years ago, be it noted that when B&N hung tough, and was willing to go to court, MS "settled" by investing $300M in a joint venture, and they became good buddies who were not going to have such silly squabbles any more.
Interesting that they have not gone after Apple's iOS on a lot of those same "patents" - have they?
YMMV"
MS *really* doesn't want to go to court over these patents, nor do they want anybody knowing exactly what they are about... As for the FAT patents? Those were unenforcable long ago. http://www.geek.com/articles/law/microsoft-fat-patent-shot-down-2004101 [geek.com]
Re:Canon here I come (Score:4, Informative)
Pentax is hugely backwards compatible. I have glass sitting around that is over 30 years old that works flawlessly on my modern SLR. The only problem is some of the newer lenses, made for crop sensors, aren't really usable on film bodies without severe vignetting (though not always, some labeled for ASP-C are actually have a 35mm image circle). Also, all however many years of class all have stabilization, thanks to in body IS (why is also why I picked Olympus for my mirrorless).
Back in the film days there were several companies making class for other big brands. Also most screw mount lenses were pretty universal (m39 for pretty much all rangefinder/Leica type cameras, and m42 for pretty much everything else. Bayonet mounts is where things went downhill for compatibility. Now the only real "open" platform out there is Micro 4/3s, but even that isn't terribly open since its only Olympus and Panasonic.
I wouldn't call it lock in, though, since there are actual physical limitations, such as flange distance, and contacts (what features do you want to ship to the lens, or keep in body?). Some of it is obviously lock in, but thats putting it a bit strong.
Re:Turnabout is fair play: DR-DOS (Score:3, Informative)
If Oracle by some chance beats Google, then Oracle is doomed, as IBM will strip oracle of 100% of their profits from their inception.
Oracle database was 100% ripped off code from IBM's DB/2... 100% - not 5 lines of fucking code.
The database structure, format, API, programming language, all of it - stolen from IBM.
Goodbye Oracle if you try and succeed - you're signing your death warrant.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't about any genuine invention. Providing "replacement" technology is actually pretty trivial. Many of these predate their Microsoft counterpart. The real problem is that product configuration becomes unnecessarily complicated because suddenly extra device drivers are required.
Taxes on "being compatible" are obscene and should be viewed by everyone here as such.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Informative)
Its not Android that Microsoft is licensing, its some of their protocols, (MTP most likely).
Bullshit.
It's pretty widely known now that MS is extorting money almost exclusively for its ancient FAT filesystem patents. Because they were able to establish it as a defacto format during their monopoly years, they're now in a position where its ubiquitous. Not because its good, or innovative or took significant effort to develop. Just because it became the lowest common denominator.
And they'll continue milking it until somebody stops them.
It really is time for industry to route around this damage and develop a new common, free and open filesystem format, or for governments to step in and stop this abuse of their systems.
Re:Hey buddy (Score:5, Informative)
These are the patents from your link:
FAT filenames
Flash Memory filesystem bad block hack
Separation layer/API for telephone radio (aka a driver)
Adding a number from dialler to contacts
Notification API, but on mobiles.
Pop-up menus, but on mobiles.
Offline/online caching and reconciliation (like Notes)
Microsoft is claiming that the thought and effort that went into these ideas is worth more than $230,000,000 per annum in licensing fees.