37 Android Patent Lawsuits 154
An anonymous reader writes "37 lawsuits have been filed against Android in a little more than a year, the latest one of them being Microsoft's lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec. ReadWriteWeb says 'the number of patent lawsuits related to the Android operating system is unprecedented' and shows an infographic that is also available on Twitpic and as a PDF file, on Scribd. The first two suits were filed in March 2010 by Apple and MobileMedia against HTC. The original source of the chart, the FOSS Patents blog, says that Android's market share is only one factor, other reasons being that Google's patent portfolio is 'far too weak for what's undertaken in connection with Android'; that Google doesn't do 'inbound licensing' from trolls; and that Google tends to ignore patent issues because Google itself is rarely sued: in most of these cases, Android device makers are under attack."
Scare tactics (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A way around that would be to declare the software is all free. It's just the hardware they are selling.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if the phone manufacturers did not distribute the software at all, but rather required you to run a piece of software that downloads and installs the OS directly from Google, it would likely absolve them. I think that's what the GP was trying to get at. Or maybe not. Hard to say. My interpretation was that they were looking for a way to shift the patent suits to Google (where they belong) instead of to a mere distributor.
Actually, this is one thing that bothers me about patent law. I
Re: (Score:1)
These patent suits won't kill Android - the open source project - sure. But it may well stop companies from putting it on their devices (or risk being sued and having to pay up), which could have a very bad impact on Android's momentum. I have no clue how bad thish could get, but I am worried :/
Re: (Score:3)
Expect some lawyers to make money, and a few trolls to get molested.
Re: (Score:2)
I firmly believe that most companies that have jumped on the Android bandwagon know full well what risks they are taking. The Android bus has a very long route and is picking up more passengers all the time. The real question on my mind is what happens when the bus is full?
Re: (Score:2)
And the next stop is in front of the court, no doubt. Oh wait, we've already been there... multiple times.
Re:Scare tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Scare tactics (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Scare tactics (Score:4, Interesting)
They will not even come close to succeeding, and here's the proof:
how many of these lawsuits found anyone guilty of anything? How many have settled due to a judgment? Answer: zero.
The only settlement to date, was a private one with samsung where samsung buckled to MS and did not go to court at all.
Other than that, none of settled, and none have found conclusively on anything. That should tell you how well android is doing, that all we have is misinformation to "Scare people away".
It's way too late to stop android, beyond of which that even if android is found "guilty", what are you going to do? Stop distribution? Ms aims to stop at the manufacturer level, but if they really wanted they could ship devices with nothing but firmware to let people flash the roms themselves. It's quite impossible to prevent distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
They will not even come close to succeeding, and here's the proof:
how many of these lawsuits found anyone guilty of anything? How many have settled due to a judgment? Answer: zero.
The only settlement to date, was a private one with samsung where samsung buckled to MS and did not go to court at all.
But that's the thing. If Microsoft comes after you with a patent lawsuit, your choices are to either cave to their demands, or fight a costly legal battle (and then, possibly, be forced to cave to their demands.)
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, only whether you have the money to stand up to a very powerful rival company.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true, and it has never been true.
Companies such as barnes and nobles are HUGE companies who do not buckle to the likes of Microsoft.
If they went after you or I? We'd be fucked without EFF support. However, the companies they're suing over android are in no way small fry.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not true, and it has never been true.
Companies such as barnes and nobles are HUGE companies who do not buckle to the likes of Microsoft.
If they went after you or I? We'd be fucked without EFF support. However, the companies they're suing over android are in no way small fry.
What? Barnes and Noble is "HUGE"? Since when? Barnes and Noble has a market capitalization of slightly over half a billion dollars. Microsoft makes that much in PROFIT in a week. MSFT could buy BKS out of petty cash and never even notice the purchase. I'd guess that Microsoft pays nearly as much in lawyers salaries and legal expenses per year as Barnes and Noble is worth as a whole company.
Re: (Score:2)
After a certain point (which Barnes and Noble is clearly large enough to afford), I don't see how this helps much. It's not like you can do much more with 500 lawyers than you can with 100. What are the extra lawyers going to do? Tag-team every 5 minutes so they don't wear themselves out?
Research and expertise and focus do benefit from small initial increases in the number of lawyers. So the OPs point stands. For you or me, we probably can't even afford one lawyer to defend us for a full trial of this sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Ms aims to stop at the manufacturer level, but if they really wanted they could ship devices with nothing but firmware to let people flash the roms themselves. It's quite impossible to prevent distribution.
If that were the way Android was distributed, it would certainly prevent distribution to well over 99.9+% of its current market.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh man, how did I miss this? From the article:
Yes, that Florian. Why do people even bother printing articles from the man?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed scare tactics, but this also shows two things:
A) Android is considered a threat
B) Patent system is flawed and stiffles innovation
37?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
37 in one year? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:37 in one year? (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points. The poster is right on point.
One way to get rid of this ridiculous patent situation tech is in right now is for big, not-so-evil companies to innovate and let some of these suits happen. When these get to trial I think a lot of these patent holders are going to look ridiculous to judges. We need judicial review of the entire system by a good, non-corrupt judge. Too bad the non-corrupt judges are hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should coin a law about this: The products competitiveness and usefulness for the consumer in the United States is directly proportional to the number of lawsuits filed against it to keep it off the market.
Er, wait, doesn't that mean that i4i's suit against Microsoft makes OOXML a "good" thing?
I think this "law" needs some refinement.
Creating a Perfect Moment to Strike (Score:5, Interesting)
It occurs to me that Google is approaching a perfect moment to strike against software patents utterly. Having very few of their own and having a clearly innovative product that is much in demand, they are in the perfect position to show that software patents are harmful to innovation "even for a large company like us.'
Were they to now begin, in each of these cases, a concerted affirmative defense that software, when executing on a "general purpose computer" can not possibly be in violation of any patent.
The argument would have to be two-fold:
First, one can not make a "specific machine" out of a "general machine" by adding functionality. Just as putting a single copy of Moby Dick on a book shelf (or indeed filling a bookshelf with copies of Mobey Dick) does not divest the bookshelf of its bookshelf-ness and convert it into a "Mobey Dick location structural support machine", putting software on a PC or a phone doesn't reduce the nature of the PC or phone to convert it into a "specific machine".
Second, the demonstration of excessive burden and harm that can be brought to bear on a individual device, and makers there of, when the "specific machine" theory is applied as is, given that the one "specific machine" is getting sued 37 times for more than one patent per time, because the individual android device(s) are apparently being forced into a quantum superposition [<==turn that into lawyer speech] where they are each individually transformed by software int dozens or hundreds of individual specific machines.
The very fact that in each law suit the patent needs must read "what is described" is "a machine where" and yet it is sure as rain that the individual pantents don't reference one another in scope. (That is, two patents on say a automobile brake system can be inclusive of one another if one is for say, an actuator and the other is for a caliper, since both will mention the existence of the others collateral components; whereas a "web status update specific machine" would be exclusive of a "local document indexing specific machine").
The fact that in each case Google can reference the other cases as demonstration of cumulative harm caused by the current misinterpration of the precident would give them perfect grounds to argue before the court(s) that software simply cannot rationally or legally be patent material, particularly under the "promote the useful arts and sciences clause".
The ultimate goal would be to get a ruling that software running on, or that can run on, a general purpose computer can not, by definition, be in violation of any patent. Barring that, getting software classified the same as 'perpetual motion machines' as a 'we don't do that' clause of all patent law whoudl be just as ideal.
Re: (Score:3)
There is already established precedent that says you're wrong on this point. You're better off arguing that software and math are synonymous, and since the latter is unpatentable we have a contradiction: either certain types of math should be patentable subject to criteria X, or software is inherently unpatentable. Either outcome would be acceptable, because it would at least require someone to very specifically
Florian (Score:5, Informative)
More crap from Florian Mueller [google.com]?
Yes [google.com].
Yet more FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because we keep getting trolled into commenting and getting them more ad revenue, that's why.
Re:Yet more FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does slashdot keep posting [INSERT-PERSON-AGAINST-COMPANY-X] inane anti-[INSERT-COMPANY-X-PRODUCT] ramblings? Surely if there is such a looming threat, someone besides a repeatedly discredited hack has to be writing about it.
All fans of company X and their products, please copy and store for future use. You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does slashdot keep posting [INSERT-PERSON-AGAINST-COMPANY-X] inane anti-[INSERT-COMPANY-X-PRODUCT] ramblings? Surely if there is such a looming threat, someone besides a repeatedly discredited hack has to be writing about it.
All fans of company X and their products, please copy and store for future use. You're welcome.
Now that you're done with a sarcastic response, perhaps you'd actually like to respond to the issue. Florian Muller has, in the last week alone, tried to scare up a bogus "serious Linux copyright threat [slashdot.org]" and got roundly slapped down as inane. He clearly no understanding of copyright law, patent law, Linux or Andriod. Why slashdot keeps posting his blog as if he was an expert on these is baffling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet more FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the summary at least brings up an interesting and important point. We all know that Google is a major innovator, but for a such a technology driven company they have relatively few patents. It may be that it simply doesn't take the throw the crap against the wall and see sticks approach to patenting. That's a good thing for society, but maybe not so good for Google.
Just because you ignore abusive patent practices doesn't mean those practices ignore *you*. One of the reasons companies amass huge patent portfolios is as defensive armor. You threaten to tie me up with BS lawsuits and I'll return the favor.
Think about that. Under the system of software patents we have now, you have to abuse the system to protect yourself from abuse of the system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, every time Google patents something stupid, Slashdot is full of posts saying "So much for 'Don't be Evil'....", regardless of the fact that Google doesn't abuse it's portfolio and still doesn't have a large enough one to fend of attacks.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a very good point actually. Thank you AC.
It looks to me like Google is hoping someone decides to step up sue them. I'd be willing to bet it'd be a great show... We might finally get that patent reform we've all been asking for.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For Google to get android out so quickly it had
Re: (Score:2)
> One has to wonder...
Actually, no, there is no need to wonder. The only innovation in the iPhone is taking ideas and technology from other people and companies and putting it on a smart phone.
The multi-touch you seem to think everyone stole from Apple, guess what... Multitouch Overview [billbuxton.com].
Apple is not even close to being the inventor of multi-touch and it is not even that difficult to discover this fact if one simply does a quick google search before making false assumptions and writing a paragraph based
Re: (Score:2)
> it had to copy the iPhone and other existing model instead of innovating
There are only so many ways to display a button that starts an application. The main "innovation" that Apple brought to the iPhone, was multitouch - and even that had been done before, just not in a commercial application.
I won't go as far as to say that innovation is overrated, but packaging and marketing existing technologies is not innovating. Apple produces fine products - smooth, clean, and mostly just works - but they're not
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There'll be an Android patent license consortium if that's the case similar to what MPEG-LA does. You can license the patents individually from Apple/Microsoft/etc/etc/etc or just pay one entitiy and get all their licenses in one bundle.
Google makes the code available. OEMs will be encouraged to buy the consortium licensing, and life will go on as it always has. Price of the patent licenses will be just a cost of using Android and its ecosystem, nothing more. It's a strong enough ecosystem that could suppor
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately that indemnification that you paid for does not cover nobody wanting to buy your product. I am pretty sure the smartphone manufacturers could not care less which OS is running on the phone as long as they sell like crazy.
When Asus was working on the first netbooks they tried to get Windows XP from Microsoft because they already knew from their research that nobody was going to pay a premium price for a low power laptop running Windows 7. Highly por
Similar for iOS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was a Nokia->Apple lawsuit, but that was over GSM (i.e. hardware), not iOS. I don't recall any lawsuits about the OS itself.
Re: (Score:1)
Poor Graph, D+ at best (Score:5, Interesting)
That is a poor and misleading graph for several reasons not least:
There is no comparison to other software platforms
The style chosen only escalates, the graph doesn't go down when the court case is resolved in either party's favour.
Ambiguous because not all court cases are equal, some cases could be more valid than others.
FUD, IMO
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, Florian had help from a REAL LIVE graphic designer! He probably used all kinds of professional tools, like Adobe Illustrator, to make that graph possible. That counts for something, right? Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Unsurprising and not abnormal (Score:4, Informative)
Never has an operating system had so many challenges to its intellectual property in such a short time period as the Google operating system has had in the last year.
That's because an operating system never gained such popularity in such a short time period*. I expect if the number of patent lawsuits were charted against the number of users, we'd see that the ratio for Android would be normal (or less) compared to other operating systems. It's just that typically these things are spread out over several years, which is how long the OS takes to really become popular.
* Yeah, I just made that up off the top of my head.
Android is a threat (Score:3)
I can only guess that all these big companies see android as a big threat. And they're probably right. Android is vacuuming up the mobile and tablet markets, both of which are the biggest growing sectors right now. If the trend continues as it has been, then the current big players are going to find themselves locked out almost entirely unless they do something to stall Android's advance.
Re:Android is a threat...really? (Score:3)
Android is vacuuming up the mobile and tablet markets...
I think you know Android is not vaccuming up the tablet market...or is it? Where is the proof?
Re:Android is a threat...really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well...
Lets browse the tablet internet market for a second...
For IOS, we have Apple's iPad. Strategy Analytics says that:
IOS went from 95.5% market share of tablets in Q3 to 75.3% in Q4 2010.
Then we have "everyone else":
Android went from 2.3% in Q3 to 21.6% in Q4.
"all others" went from 2.3 in Q3 to 3.1 in Q4.
To me, this looks like android is spreading like wildfire in the tablet space. It snatched up more than 20% of market share in ONE QUARTER. While it is doubtful that growth like that is sustainable, even modest growth after a spurt like that could really put the screws to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, this looks like android is spreading like wildfire in the tablet space. It snatched up more than 20% of market share in ONE QUARTER. While it is doubtful that growth like that is sustainable, even modest growth after a spurt like that could really put the screws to Apple.
You're kidding right?
There wasn't really a tablet market of measurable size until the iPad.
The growth of Android in Q4 is other manufacturers getting into the game and offering alternatives (a good thing for the consumer).
I'm actually more surprised that Apple has managed to hold onto ~75% of the Tablet market. If Apple can hold onto 60%-70% of the market, then they are doing Just Fine and have nothing to complain about as the market grows and heads toward saturation (at some point in the future).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At any point, that big of a jump is significant. There isn't really too many Android table options at the moment and one of the main ones hasn't released its wi-fi only version. There was a tablet PC market before Apple. Apple just made it trendy. To cut in to it that much in one quarter is pretty nuts. If you held a business where you pretty much owned the market and some guy came in and took 20% of your customers in 1 quarter and you weren't concerned, you would be one terrible CEO.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple and Android Shipments
3Q 4.2M 4Q 7.3M iPad
3Q 0.1M 4Q 2.1M Android
Apple increased shipments by 3.1 million and Android only 2 million therefore Apple's market is increasing 55% faster than Android's. Android is doomed!./sarcasm Four data points is not enough to draw much of a conclusion. These are shipments, not sales to end customers, and Apple probably sold only 6M using that measure, and Android under a million. Android is doing very well, it may be able to get 40% share this year.
You
Re: (Score:2)
Of interest to me is where the demand is. I live in Japan and I've started to see Galaxy Tabs everywhere (there are even 3 here in the school staff room as I speak). I've yet to see anyone with an iPad. I suspect this is because Docomo and AU are *really* pushing Android (and working very hard at establishing "Android" as a viable brank) and Softbank is the only telecom vendor pushing iOS devices. And while iPods are quite popular here, it doesn't seem to be translating to iPad success. I suspect this
Re: (Score:1)
Well, to be brutally honest, Android is leading the smartphone market and it is almost non-existent in the tablet market.
Re: (Score:2)
"makers under pressure to address IP infringement" (Score:5, Insightful)
Beg the question much? Are we really saying "they are infringing, now let's see how much it costs them"?
Android is a collection of almost entirely free software, born out of the best ideas that could be packed into a phone. It is disgusting to think that Apple has a claim for a patent on "touching a screen with more than one finger" or that Microsoft is the only one that is ever allowed to use "a specifically designated key that initiates a search function". These ideas are so blatantly obvious, and yet the IP system in the US is rolling over to credit anyone who patented any ridiculous thing, and award them huge settlements.
I dont know whether to be disgusted because this is basically only useful as a make-work project for lawyers and courts, or because it means that real innovation will need to happen outside the borders of the US if it's going to happen at all.
Re:"makers under pressure to address IP infringeme (Score:4, Interesting)
It's OK if the product was designed, manufactured in US or the company is American. But why do I have to pay for the software patents on devices that are neither targeted at US, not manufactured in US and the company is not based in US? All HTC Android devices have the license fee for those software patents included and forwarded to MS. That is the fucking loophole that I hate.
Basically that is one of the imperialistic features of current US. Reminds me of stamp tax...
Re: (Score:2)
That's more of a question of how effective is it to make a "US-only" device and an "Everyone Else" device. HTC could very well make a phone using just the open sourced version of Android, thank Google with a nicely worded letter and nothing more (instead of being a premiere partner in AOSP, OHSA, etc. and paying activation fees to Google for every handset) but what would be the point? Do you really want an Android replica with no actual ties to Google? No app market? No one-stop activation?
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we sue the patent office?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That chart's a year old! (Score:2)
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and the fact is that in phones, Android is kicking some serious iOS butt at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how much people think Andriod is winning here like Charlie Sheen.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/iphone-os-still-dominates-mobile-web-android-on-the-way-up.ars
shows iOS still King...and andriod is still a long way off even with so many second ratr phone makers and fragmented store ....
much bias here?
Here's an update from the same website:
Android tops everyone in 2010 market share; 2011 may be different [arstechnica.com]
Google + Android vs. Handset Maker? (Score:3)
and that Google tends to ignore patent issues because Google itself is rarely sued: in most of these cases, Android device makers are under attack.
This is probably the single most important bit. Not whether it is correct or not, but for what is implied in the statement.
I imagine if a phone distributing Win-WOMPIT (Whatever Our Mobile Platform Is Today) gets sued, MicroSoft would probably be target #1, or at least an often named Co-Defendant. With the iPhone the manufacturer of the handset and OS are the same, and Apple has (and is/will) field these sort of things on its own.
With Android, if people are going after the Handset manufacturers independent of Google, then they might feel it opens them up to too much individual liability (wether or not it is true). If that happens, then no one will want to make Android devices, since they will just cost more in legal fees.
Maybe this is yet another reason for Google to buy out T-Mobile instead of AT&T. Let them take over a Cell Carrier, open up their air-waves, and provide a "foundation" to start actually making 'native' Android phones for their own network?
obligatory reference (Score:2)
In a row?
That'll teach 'em (Score:2)
It doesn't pay to write free software that's any good.
Thanks, Patent Office!
FUD: Nothing to see here move along.. Move along (Score:2)
The patent trolls are taking over slashdot. Microsoft must be happy now. Sigh
Why oh why are tech patents given for so long now? (Score:2)
I understand physical items, the time required to design and develop a physical, I can hold deal and the longer lengths of time required to develop.. but software? Plus there's more than one way to write code to obtain the same outcome.. Why aren't the terms shortened so progress and such can actually happen?!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. 12-15 years is too long in the software world (think Windows 95 vs. Windows 7).
Patents are supposed to help benefit society by having inventors document their invention and getting a limited time exclusivity right for it. There is no reason why this cannot be true for software, but limited to 2-3 years (e.g. multi-touch).
Why doesn't Google buy Novell's patents? (Score:1)
Depressing for Softies (Score:1)
For the (how many are there, these days?) folks at Microsoft who actually do invention and implementation as opposed to managing various marketing, licensing and litigation schemes, this must be pretty embarrassing, sad-making. Can't seem to compete by getting useful and compelling products into the hands of consumers, so fight in the courts? Pathetic, really.
Hardware independance (Score:2)
Wouldnt this problem be bypassed by handset makers selling phones with a vary basic(featurephone like) custom OS. Let the community develop Android for specific models, but make the phone hardware in such a way that it is easy for the community to develop for and customise.Then users can install Android on their own. Provide a backup ROM like some GPU makers provide to prevent bricking.
Somewhat like selling laptops without an OS
(obligatory?) Clerks Reference (Score:2)
37?!? [youtube.com]
Try not to get sued on the way to the parking lot...
Patently absurd (Score:2)
I, for one, would LOVE to know how much money the top 50 IT companies in the world have SWAPPED over patent and copyright lawsuits in the last 20 years - I'm quite sure the figure would be mind blowing for mere mor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad news for Google (Score:4, Funny)
So; The grandparent arrives suddenly having never posted before, is spending enough time refreshing to get a first post. I think we find that suspicious. We think that accusing WrongSizeGlass of trolling must be unfair and outrageous
But then let's look at the moderation on this (if you don't have an account you will want to sign up for one to see this stuff).
Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation -2
70% Troll
30% Insightful
Extra 'Troll' Modifier
If the moderation is 70/30 then the only possible solutions are multiples of 7 and 3 so at least three insightful moderations have been given. Now, the first post has some interesting comment. It's definitely a reflection of Microsoft's paranoia. However, there are too many things which are wrong which have been covered too often on Slashdot for any serious mod to mod it insightful. In any case, almost all legitimate positive moderation shows variety (underrated / interesting / insightful).
Looking at the facts there seem to be two possible explanations; a) the GNAA has returned having learned to troll subtly, pretending to be Microsoft Astroturfers and never ever linking to Goatse whilst building an elite undercover uber-posting super-moderators who can afford to give them mod points without risking losing the ability to moderate b) Microsoft is an immoral deceptive company using publicity people to spread lies and astroturfing like mad.
Obviously b) which would mean we do need a way to mod astroturfers is untenable so only a) can be true. Microsoft is an upstanding tax paying pillar of society. They would never ever ever astroturf and lie and cheat. WrongSizeGlass's moderation as troll must be justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Or slashdot rounds the percentages to the nearest tens place. 33.33333% rounds down to 30%, 66.66666 rounds up to 70%.
Re: (Score:2)
We think that accusing WrongSizeGlass of trolling must be unfair and outrageous
It is never unfair to mod me as 'Trolling'. Those with the mod points are those who 'vote'. Did I know I'd get modded as a 'Troll' for that post? I figured I'd get one of the negative moderations, but who cares? Those who modded it have just as much right state their view (via moderation) as I did via my post (which I still stand by).
WrongSizeGlass's moderation as troll must be justified.
I'm glad you cleared that up for everyone ;-)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
As the other poster said, welcome to slashdot.
Sadly, most slashdotters here these days have no clue whatsoever about the things they post. They have an opinion, regardless of how learned that opinion is, they share. That wasn't always the case. Even worse, troll moderation seems to be on par with valid moderation. Which means its a coin toss if a reasonable comment will be punished or promoted - or both. Even worse, while MS does deserve critical comments for their extremely long history of illegal and unet
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
brainlessly hold a grudge and attempt to punish any post which mentions Microsoft in anything other than a negative light.
Microsoft IS using a Reputation Manager (like RepuationDefender [reputation.com] to post and moderate on Slashdot. That distorts discussion and makes it nearly impossible to identify if your posts are sincere.
If you don't want to be modded down for supporting a company which is attempting to destroy open conversation on Slashdot, then you need to work out how to differentiate yourself from their Reputation Managers. Better still, persuade Microsoft to stop treating our discussions as their property.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I have to be moderated troll just because I like Microsoft products?
Because you make complete unsubstantiated claims that contradict all reality. There are a lot of Windows supporters here, too. /. is a technical crowd. Just because your PC came delivered with Windows on it does not make it a better OS. And just because you know C# does not make it better than Java. Java used to be slow ... about 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the grandparent was completely Astroturf and moderated down for a good reason. By replying to it you are increasing the discussion about it and doing the work for the astroturfer. You are directing the discussion away from Microsoft's need to use lawsuits in a market where they can't compete through lack of platform and towards a minor issue; the quality of the development tools on WP7; which almost nobody here, let alone normal users, will ever care about.
Trolling is exactly trying to misdirect
Re: (Score:3)
They will absolutely love to use Visual Studio and C# instead of that crap and slow programming language called Java. Developers matter and Microsoft takes care of them.
Please do not include me in your "they".
Re:Bad news for Google (Score:5, Insightful)
First, this is great news for Microsoft and Meego. When manufacturers will start to get really sued for all the patent issues Google ignores, they will look at other possibilities. HTC has always been both Android and Windows Phone 7 supporter, so they will drop Android and just make Windows Phone 7 devices.
Way to make the inferior product de-facto. Same old Microsoft, this is why we wanted them destroyed, remember?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Way to make the inferior product de-facto. Same old Microsoft, this is why we wanted them destroyed, remember?
This IS Microsoft posting. They do this every single time an anti-Android news article comes up. Within the same minute of the news article, they've already got a "glory to the almighty Microsoft" comment ready to go, top of the page. Hell, they're faster than even the first post trolls, and they're expecting us to not notice this somehow.
Put simply, Microsoft is scared shitless that A) they missed out on the mobile market, B) their attempts to buy into it are failing badly, and C) they can't buy out the
Re: (Score:1)
Good news for those seeking even more patents on the cheap [stashbox.org], too.
Re: (Score:2)
They will absolutely love to use Visual Studio and C# instead of that crap and slow programming language called Java.
Care to substantiate?
Funny how C# is still stuck way behind Java, C and C++ in worldwide usage.
Re: (Score:3)
Most "free market" chaps in the U.S. are only pro-free market when it the market is deciding in their favor. When the market is NOT in their favor all of a sudden they are for "crippling" government regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think a lot of corporations are horrified about the open nature of android. It is dangerous specifically because it is generally not open to the end user (rooting, and a few models from google aside).
The fact that it is open allows companies to really modify it (blur sucks, but sense is good), and do so cheaply. Generally the end-user does not care about openness, they can't code anyway, but the OEM that is trying to sell a locked product gains much from the openness. The open platform on closed hardware
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, there is no stealing. Also, if the patents being infringed by android took billions in R&D to make, then perhaps you need to change your R&D strategy..
Or lower/eliminate the cost of Patent Filing ...
Or sue your lawyers for wasting your fees with irrelevant frivolity ...
Or reform Patent Law so you can not file for algorithms, which is in large part all most computer programs are.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, those "legally-protected ideas" are pretty trivial.
This is clearly what a new OS in the patent abuse age has to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Apart from his recent Linux header copyright brouhaha (which, to be fair, has still not been properly addressed by the appropriate parties),
Linus himself has spoken on the issue, the FSF's stance is pretty clear from what they've said in the past (and haven't changed), it was discussed in detail on Groklaw [groklaw.net], and a ZDNet contributor got a statement from a technology lawyer contradicting the claims of Naughton. What more do you wantt? -- a Ietter signed by all the 1000s of Linux contributors, living and dead?
his writings are pretty accurate,
Really? He's been wrong on almost all of his opinions ever since he tried to block the Sun sale to Oracle along with Monty Wiidenius based