HTC Is Paying Microsoft $5 For Every Android Phone 261
jcarr writes "According to Citi analyst Walter Pritchard, HTC is paying Microsoft $5 for each Android phone it makes. This may be related to a report from last year: MS and HTC sign patent deal. So now we can't even write a free OS?"
Software Patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
That is why I don't bother paying for MS licenses, I already paid for them with illegal taxes.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
Software patents need to be abolished internationally, it's that simple.
and below:
I guess the side effect which will be seen as beneficial to some is that over the coming century as more and more of the "real world" moves into structures in cyberspace all property will essentially be communal property.
I wouldn't count on any of this happening.
The Entropia Universe entered the Guinness World Records Book in both 2004 and 2008 for the most expensive virtual world objects ever sold, and in 2009, a virtual space station, a popular destination, sold for $330,000. This was then eclipsed in November 2010 when a player sold a virtual resort on Planet Calypso for $635,000; this property was sold in chunks, with the largest sold for $335,000
Entropia Universe [wikipedia.org]
There are, I suspect, more people who are comfortable with the imperfections and contractions of the commercial, competitive - secular - world than with any communal ideal of socialist perfection.
More who would choose to carve out some territory in cyberspace that was uniquely their own: Companies Explore Private Virtual Worlds [pcworld.com]
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
People keep asking where the "Microsoft tax" is. This is yet one more example, which those same people will ignore.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:5, Informative)
"Knowledge Sir, should be free to all." ----Harcourt Fenton Mudd
(in response to an accusation by James T. Kirk that he didn't pay royalties on patents.)
Star Trek Original Series Season 2 Episode 8 - "I, Mudd" (1967)
Time of quote in Episode: 13:37
Can I FINALLY get my nerd card now?
Re:Software Patents. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you think Larry page & Sergey Brin would have fared against Altavista and the like had their PageRank system not been patent protected?
Better because of the need to hire less lawyers and less payouts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google [wikipedia.org] Count how many times the word court appears.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3)
The system may have been better due to the fact anyone in the world could develop it, however Larry & Sergey would not be credited with it as they would have no rights to the code. So in short less lawyers in short run, less money/praise in long run. Hmmm what to chose?
That's your problem. You don't understand the issue. Copyright isn't what we want to abolish, it's software patents.
The code that your write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, is yours. You own it. No one can directly copy that code without your permission. That is copyright.
Software patents are more like this... Someone develops a piece of software that highlights a link when the user mouses over it. They patents this behavior as a part of their web based business. You also run a web based business and you think that it would be nifty to have links highlighted when a user mouses over them. You write, or pay someone to write on your behalf, a piece of software to do this. Your code is pristine. You or your agent wrote it from scratch, you didn't copy any of the other person's code. But, he has a patent on that behavior. He sues you and you have to pay him thousands of dollars and lawyer fees because you had the same idea but he patented it first.
LK
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
There needs to be no "protection." As it stands, if small developers need protection, it would be protection from being sued and C&D'd by larger companies and IP holding firms for their revolutionary ideas.
Fact is, every revolutionary idea is build on other ideas that came before it and chances are that someone has a frikken software patent on the revolutionary idea's "dependencies."
Intellectual property is not property. It's thought to be a "we thought of it first" claim but in reality that's really not the case. It just doesn't happen that way.
And let's take another path in the same argument. SCREW SMALL DEVELOPERS who do not do what they do for the love of doing it. If you are doing it to get rich, then you're doing it wrong and you are pollution in the community. Go get a law degree and make money that way -- it would probably suit you better anyway.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyroght protects specific software implementation. Patent protects the way you make your idea work. There is no need for software patents, as they grant far more protection to software-based ideas then other ideas.
There should always be a right to implement the same idea in a different way legally. Normal patents work this way. Software patents, for some insane reason (read - corruption in US government that allowed creation of software patents), do not.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they wouldn't have protection for their own revolutionary ideas, but they wouldn't be prevented from sharing it with the world because any implementation required the use of someone else's revolutionary ideas. As it stands, the price of a revolutionary idea is getting sued out of existence...
There's a phrase: "standing on the shoulders of giants." The price of building on the vast knowledge that came before you should be that someone else gets to build on yours.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
On the other hand, Altavista could have implemented PageRank secretly... It's virtually impossible to identify the infringement if the software is not publicly available... I bet Bing uses some very similar algorithm, that probably infringes on PageRank patent
And Google became popular, not because their PageRank was/is better. Their interface was much cleaner and usable.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3)
Were you actually using the Internet when Altavista was relevant? The reason that I stopped using Altavista and started using Google was simple: Altavista used to give search results that were mostly broken links. Altavista's spidering of the web fell way behind what Google was doing and so it had lots of junk in its database.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
... Proper patents require a schematic, software patents should require source code...
In that case, software should be (and is) copyrightable, not patentable. The issue is that the US patent system is granting a legal monopoly (aka, a patent) on a vague conceptual description with no physical embodiment. Innovation dies when the simple act of improving upon ideas (aka, algorithms) is illegal.
The system is terribly broken, and the influence of $$$ in the political/legal system prevents it from being fixed.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
It's hard to write new software that doesn't violate some US patent considering how broad they often are.
And when you do.. *bam*, innovation.
What did Microsoft invent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trouble is HTC are paying Microsoft for inventions Microsoft didn't make. HTC interface is not the crappy Microsoft one, and the underlying OS predates Microsofts entry into the handset market.
So what exactly is HTC paying Microsoft for?
Protection money? That's what it comes down to, MS has convinced them that Microsoft can make everyone's life so difficult that HTC can gain an advantage simply by paying the fee.
But the B&N challenge shows Microsoft has nothing in its patent portfolio but bluster and vague threats covered with NDAs. That's why MS isn't trying to go after Google directly, rather picking off smaller players.
Re:What did Microsoft invent? (Score:2, Informative)
Trouble is HTC are paying Microsoft for inventions Microsoft didn't make. HTC interface is not the crappy Microsoft one, and the underlying OS predates Microsofts entry into the handset market
Android predates neither WinMo, nor WinCE, sorry.
That's what it comes down to, MS has convinced them that Microsoft can make everyone's life so difficult that HTC can gain an advantage simply by paying the fee.
More likely they're paying for a license to use patented Microsoft tech, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's sad really, they sue and they're the bad guy, they play nice and approach infringers, offering a chance to negotiate a license peacefully, and they're still the bad guy. You don't want to deal with patents, avoid infringing on them and innovate.
. That's why MS isn't trying to go after Google directly, rather picking off smaller players.
Is it really? Microsoft really doesn't have much of a history of litigation, and even less one of frivolous litigation, besides that the challenges doesn;t actually show anything, as far as I can tell, there's been no judgment on the case, and therefore all any of this really says is that Microsoft says B&N is infringing, and B&N says they aren't.
For all we know, Google has a license for the same patents. And where do you get "picking off" from? They're not even being the slightest bit hostile, the patents in question are available under RAND, and they tried for a year to negotiate with B&N (which is the opposite of "picking off") , they're asserting their IP, and being nice about it.
Not everything they do is outright malicious.
Re:What did Microsoft invent? (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't want to deal with patents, avoid infringing on them and innovate.
How would one go about that, exactly? I mean, it is easy to write a piece of innovate code. But, to make it useful, you need to tie it together with stuff that isn't so innovative. For example, you might want to have a menu. Or, you might want to have say copy and paste. There are innumerable things that, if you don't provide them in your code, will make the user look at your innovation and just say, "what a pile of crap: it doesn't do any of the stuff I need it to do.". That's where people are hitting software patent issues: on stuff that has become part of what is a base layer of expectations on "how stuff works".
Re:What did Microsoft invent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Start off by NOT ever saying "I want to do this like how {some other software} does it", or "I want to it look and feel just like how {some other software} does". That will eliminate 99% of all patent infringement cases. Problem is quite a few want their software to do most things EXACTLY like how another package does. Quite honestly, that IS stealing. You think that user interfaces just build themselves, and you want to steal all the hard work others have done into designing dozens or hundreds of iterations and then doing studies and tests on usability, but you don't want to do all that yourself. No, people just want to steal the end result, without doing the work themselves, nor paying RAND fees to the company that actually did. Sorry, but many software patents ARE needed.
Re:What did Microsoft invent? (Score:3)
Welcome to the way all creative expression works. You find something you like and you make it a little better. Do you think Beethoven could have existed in his time if it wasn't for the countless innovators who's creative works inspired him to write in the way he did?
If you want to go down the road of supporting UI design in the same way one pays for sheet music then fine, but frankly, if you have to worry about the knock off's substantially impacting your business, then you're probably not executing very well to begin with.
Re:What did Microsoft invent? (Score:3)
You mean like this [youtu.be]? People won't mind, it's in the public domain.
Re:Are you serious? (Score:2)
Seriously? You want a citation to prove something doesn't exist?
Re:What did Microsoft invent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't blame MS for playing the game, blame the government for making the rules so retarded.
In case you haven't noticed, for the past few decades at least, "the game" has been for giant corporations to purchase whatever retarded rules they want directly from whichever politicians are in power. According to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, such purchases are a fundamental Constitutional right.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:4, Insightful)
Innovation and patents in software are totally separate. You can get patents for things which are obvious, nebulous or even already patented by others. No innovation required.
Conversely, you can make a carbon copy of a lot of things without necessarily stepping on the patents involved.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
That statement borders on "asinine". No one in the FOSS community WANTS their software to do what Windows software did ten years ago. We didn't want it then, we don't want it now, and if we ever arrive at that point, we'll probably all abandon FOSS. Good grief . . .
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3)
You've obviously not used a Linux desktop lately. Enlightenment, for starters. It's the epitome of an "eyecandy" desktop - and it uses fewer system resources than other known "light" desktops. Open Sound Systems version 4 is another - sound beats anything on any system, IMO. Android is FOSS. Much of Google's stuff is FOSS. Ubuntu thinks they've got something with Unity desktop.
Perhaps I should ask you to define "innovative". I've looked at many software offerings in the past that claimed to be "innovative". Some gooberhead or another figures out how to put a pretty GUI in front of NETCAP or some other system tool, or group of tools, copyrights it, and offers it under a restrictive proprietary license, for 30, 90, maybe 120 dollars. If you call that "innovative", then FOSS has no such innovative offerings. You'll be disappointed if you go looking.
In a Microsoft eccentric world, few people are equipped to recognize real innovation.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
Re:Software Patents. (Score:3)
That would be OK, if HTC was an US based company or the devices were manufactured in US.
Re:Software Patents. (Score:2)
They certainly could sue. The argument is that, if you want to sell the product in the US, then you can't sell it without paying for a license outside the US. Otherwise, withdraw it from the US and only sell it elsewhere.
In this case, it's just a rumour (Score:3)
This is an analyst's guess as to what's in the deal between Microsoft and HTC. The timing is very suspicious - it comes a day after investors are calling for Ballmer's head on a pike, specifically because of Microsofts' failures in the mobile phone space.
Who knows - maybe Nokia wasn't the first time Microsoft paid a handset maker a huge chunk of cash to make a deal?
Maybe in return, Microsoft charges HTC less for each WinPhone license - or even pays HTC?
If you believed every convenient rumour from every analyst, your head would already have exploded. This sounds like a very convenient astroturf story to try to take attention away from the Nokiasoft and Skype fiascoes, and Microsoft being passed by IBM in value.
It would be far from the first time that an analyst released a paid opinion (remember - the courts have ruled that they can say pretty much anything they want, without facts to back it up, because they're "just opinions").
Don't sign dumb deals (Score:2)
Assuming this is correct, it's because HTC chose to sign the deal. That sounds to me as a spectator like a dumb business decision, but it was HTC's to make. I understand some companies paid $699 for a Linux license not long ago - does that mean we can't write a free desktop OS?
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely. HTC probably decided that it was worth $5 per handset to indemnify themselves from litigation.
Whether the fee is paid to MSFT or gobbled up by patent lawyers seems like a morally neutral thing. It's not like one group is significantly less sleazy or sucks less scum than the other.
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:2)
If there were no patent trolls, there would be be no need for patent defense lawyer. It's a system where having more lawyers creates the need for more lawyers.. which in turn.. well you get the idea.
There are many parallels between lawyers and the nuclear arms race. If there were less lawyers in the first place, there would be less of a demand for lawyers as well.
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:5, Interesting)
Assuming this is correct, it's because HTC chose to sign the deal. That sounds to me as a spectator like a dumb business decision, but it was HTC's to make. I understand some companies paid $699 for a Linux license not long ago - does that mean we can't write a free desktop OS?
Several points:
With current patent law, free has nothing to do with weather or not you infringe on a software patent. Until the law is changed, a free OS could still be open to an infringement claim.
It may not be a bad deal for HTC - it removes the threat of litigation which may make their phones more popular amongst carrier since they don't have to worry about being caught in a lawsuit, and if MS agreed to defend claims, based on MS' patents, against HTC arising from possible infringement it further protects HTC.
No one knows if HTC cross licensed patents - it's possible HTC is also getting money from MS for HTC patens so the deal has a revenue impact but in reality no cost.
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:4, Interesting)
Until the law is changed, a free OS could still be open to an infringement claim.
Even changes in the law wont stop *claims* and the hope the little guys just folds due to the cost of defending oneself.
Just having some sort of reimbursement for winning if you are sued would go a long way to help out the little guys and stop a lot of the nonsense.
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:2)
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:2)
Dumb business decision? (Score:4, Interesting)
So their choices were basically:
1 - Stand up to their principles and spend millions in court fighting someone that could buy them outright. And risking injunctions that would prevent them from selling.
2 - Agree to a pretty minor 'tax', that they can pass along to the consumer and be done with it. Most consumers wont even know its there and wont care even if they did.
So, its a bad choice for them again why?
Re:Dumb business decision? (Score:4, Insightful)
just pay the mafia what they ask. its just a tax; just a cost of doing business. right?
RIGHT?
Re:Dumb business decision? (Score:4, Interesting)
The fiduciary duty of the decision makers in this organization is not to bankrupt their company battling in court the deepest pockets they can find so posters on /. are satisfied for the moment. Their duty is to maximize shareholder wealth.
Re:Dumb business decision? (Score:2)
So their choices were basically:
1 - Stand up to their principles and spend millions in court fighting someone that could buy them outright. And risking injunctions that would prevent them from selling.
2 - Agree to a pretty minor 'tax', that they can pass along to the consumer and be done with it. Most consumers wont even know its there and wont care even if they did.
So, its a bad choice for them again why?
Sort of like a Fee, for Protection from things like "accidents"?
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. They are plain vanilla Android phones. HTC makes other phones (with identical or nearly identical hardware) that run Microsoft software. This looks more like classic Microsoft scam when they ask "per processor" fee for all hardware produced -- regardless if it does or doesn't run anything from Microsoft.
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:2)
Assuming this is correct, it's because HTC chose to sign the deal. That sounds to me as a spectator like a dumb business decision, but it was HTC's to make.
actually it was probably a good business decision. The $5 per phone HTC pays is probably nothing compared to the cost of a lawsuit, even if they were too win. And if by some chance Windows Mobile 7 phones were to become popular it would put them in a bad position with Microsoft. (I suspect that part of the deal includes HTC supporting Windows Mpbile phones for a certian amount of time.)
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:2)
I did not see any details on how this came about. If HTC approached Microsoft with the desire to enter into an agreement then it is due to HTC's decision. If Microsoft approached HTC and threatened them with massive litigation costs and threats of injunctions that would halt sales of their products in the United States then it is due to Microsoft threatening HTC and a business decision was made that ideologically is bad.
And yes HTC could have fought back if Microsoft was threatening a lawsuit, but when you get mugged at gun point and hand over your wallet instead of taking a bullet it doesn't mean that you willingly gave your wallet to the mugger and therefore the mugger is innocent. It means that you know ideologically what the mugger is asking for is immoral but your ideals will provide you with no value if you are dead.
The licensing deals some signed with The SCO Group is a bit trickier. The SCO Group was blowing smoke and after the first few months this became clear to virtually everyone. Unfortunately The SCO Group did have significant financial backing thanks to Microsoft and Sun so there was a minute probability that those who were approached aggressively would have been hit with a lawsuit their small business could not afford if they did not buy some of the bogus linux licenses.
Re:Don't sign dumb deals (Score:3)
HTC was one of the most important Windows smartphone makers before they went Android so this is probably fuck off money they are paying MS. As in "please take this money and fuck off without going over our past agreements with a fine tooth comb looking for reasons to sue us."
More than Windows Phone (Score:5, Funny)
In related news, they are making more on Android sales than on Windows Phone 7. [asymco.com]
Re:More than Windows Phone (Score:5, Funny)
not every phone (Score:4, Informative)
just the phones sold in the USA, Microsoft patents aren't valid anywhere else (95% of the globe)
Re:not every phone (Score:2)
Re:not every phone (Score:2)
> Microsoft patents aren't valid anywhere else (95% of the globe)
Agreed.
> just the phones sold in the USA
I dunno, where does it say that? It would be a very Microsoft thing to do, to negotiate a US based tax on all phones sold worldwide.
Open source will always be behind (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as we have software patents. Look at the h264/Theora/WebM fiasco. Also the font hinting patents that are expiring that caused Linux to have difficulty with fonts, and then there was GIFs until 2004.
As future operating systems from Apple/Microsoft get ever more complex, Open sources operating systems will have to wait decades to get the good features. That's why Linux market share is so low due to so many patented goodies that are essential for modern computers.
Re:Open source will always be behind (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as we have software patents. Look at the h264/Theora/WebM fiasco.
The H.264 licensors include global industrial giants like Mitsubishi. Companies that have been researching video technologies since the 1920s. Companies which manufacture damn near every piece of video hardware sold on the planet.
Google can deliver a slice of the web and the mobile market --- a generous slice, to be sure, but still only a slice. It has no significant presence elsewhere in video. It can't stop or slow development of a codec like HEVC/H.265 which is going to look very good to Netflix and has the potential for strong sales elsewhere.
The real reason why open source often lags isn't patents or licensing.
It is experience, organization, money. manpower. resources, markets and marketing,
Re:Open source will always be behind (Score:3)
The real reason why open source often lags isn't patents or licensing.
It is experience, organization, money. manpower. resources, markets and marketing,
IMO figuring out what the *market* wants is the biggest issue. In general, corporate software developers build what their customers want, and open source developers build what they want. And why wouldn't this be the case? I'd hate to work for free on a project I didn't like or want to use. But that doesn't always translate to something suited to the average mainstream user...
This has been known (Score:2, Interesting)
This has been known for some time now. The only new thing is the estimate how much they make. HTC signed the deal when Apple sued them. I guess it is not stupid decision to pay instead of get sued by both Apple and MS at the same time. They chose to fight Apple and make peace with MS.
While I agree that software patents are bad for everyone that makes real products (including Apple and MS) I am disgusted by the fact that Google act as if patents somehow don't apply to them. It is one thing to fight for a change in the law and it is another thing to act as if the law does not apply to you.
Re:This has been known (Score:3)
Any examples of how Google acts as if patents don't apply to them? You made the statement as if it's self-evident.
Protection (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a protection racket, plain and simple. "Pay us or we'll break your legs and burn down your store"...well in this case it's "we will sue you into bankruptcy." Of course since lawyers are involved it's legal.
Corporate welfare (Score:3)
Yeah, pretty much... you pay them some money so they're not so desperate as to rob you of your livelihood. If we give them enough resources, they should be able to afford to live comfortably and quietly innovate to themselves in Redmond without getting in anyone's way. At least that's how the theory goes :-P
I look at this as a good thing (Score:5, Interesting)
The Android version of Linux is so popular that Phone manufacturers prefer to pay microsoft to not have to use windows phone.
Microsoft does have an interesting strategy btw: Microsoft does not seem to want to kill linux anymore because they can make
easier money just with licensing fees from companies with deep pockets.
It also says something that the phone makers would rather pay the $5-10 per phone than use windows phone 7.
Re:I look at this as a good thing (Score:5, Informative)
- Give people easy ways to navigate through information provided by their device apps via a separate control window with tabs;
- Enable display of a webpage's content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster;
- Allow apps to superimpose download status on top of the downloading content;
- Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and
- Provide users the ability to annotate text without changing the underlying document.
This is the Microsoft tax all over again, in the form of a multi-billion patent troll. Others can't innovate around Microsoft because Microsoft is the anti-competitive assclown it's always been. Regulators and legislators take notice!! Get rid of software patents already.
Re:I look at this as a good thing (Score:2)
- Permit users to easily select text in a document and adjust that selection; and
Er, I'm still sure Android doesn't infringe on that one.
Just the life and death cycle for businesses (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't worry, a few years after Ballmer is gone Microsoft will be purchased by Cisco or Oracle. TFA is about typical actions often taken by companies that have nothing more to sell, or no longer have any creative spark.
Years ago Bill Gates said he wished Microsoft could have a near-death experience like Apple did because of its rejuvenating qualities. Well, It's going to get one but, unlike Apple, it won't pull out of the dive.
Software distributors paying Microsoft patent tax (Score:2)
I'll add them to the lis:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Software_distributors_paying_Microsoft_patent_tax [swpat.org] ...actually, HTC started paying MS back in April 2010:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dOa4j5g0dXYJ:www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2010/apr10/04-27mshtcpr.mspx [googleusercontent.com]
Sad to see giants fall... (Score:4, Insightful)
So we're kicking puppies now (Score:4, Funny)
We should look into making a real microsoft tax that people pay to make sure we get the benefit of microsoft in our lives, everywhere. After all microsoft invented logic and the concept of on or off being a 1 or a 0 so go and pay microsoft 10cents for every light switch in your house because it's the right thing to do and because they *need* you money more than you do. Microsoft Everything for Everyone Forever
We don't need anything else because microsoft is like the standard on computers. Poor microsoft and those mean open source thieves who steal microsofts ideas by volunteering their time to writing freed software. If they had any morals they would pay microsoft to volunteer to write open source software because microsoft invented software and the idea of software so we should pay them.
Now get of their lawn, because only they can shit on it.
Re:So we're kicking puppies now (Score:2)
I just wish they'd quit shitting on my lawn. Or at least bring a pooper scooper.
seems like the old days where dell and others (Score:2)
And they wonder why I hate MS (Score:5, Insightful)
HTC is NOT an American company. The phones are not manufactured in US. I don't live in US. Why does the US patent law apply to me when I buy an HTC Android phone?!?!?!?!?!
Re:And they wonder why I hate MS (Score:2)
Pay up bitch!
MS IP TROLL
Nothing lasts forever, so... (Score:3)
I wonder how much of this sort of behaviour must happen before the tide starts turning against the patenting system.
It's unlikely that US lawmakers will stop supporting it, as it is an important tool for ensuring US income. But perhaps other parts of the world eventually decide it's no longer worth putting up with.
The US is an important part of the world, and always will be, but there are now several centres of the modern world (the post war era is long gone), and at some point other nations might decide that US trade threats (such as the patenting system) can fairly safely be ignored as there is plenty of good trade to be done amongst each other, especially if the US can no longer can pay its debts and plays by unfair rules.
Re:And they wonder why I hate MS (Score:2)
Re:And they wonder why I hate MS (Score:3)
No, because there's no such thing.
There are some treaties related to IP, but not every country signed all of them.
Re:And they wonder why I hate MS (Score:3)
And your following sentence just displays it best:
or sued out of existence
And that sentence also shows that the legal system should be revolutionised. There is no way anyone should become unable to protect himself and legal protection should never result in bankruptcy. Only as a result of a court decision can someone be stripped of belongings. It needs to become what as it was devised - a simple legal system where a person can comprehend the laws and defend himself.
WP7 (Score:3)
If android infringes on Microsofts IP I can't help but wonder why WP7 sucks so hard. It seems that they are saying that Google took Microsofts idea and implemented it better.
Re:WP7 (Score:3)
On top of that, Microsoft needs to have a major developer purge because they must have IP leaks. Android was developed and released before WP7. Or perhaps Google has their own black ops men who stare at goats using paranormal techniques to suck the IP out of Microsoft remotely.
Re:WP7 (Score:3)
You guys do know that Microsoft had a mobile phone OS a *LONG* time before WP7, right? As in, before iOS, much less Android, even existed? I'm sure they've filed far more more patents in this space than you realize.
The validity of those patents is something for the courts to decide, but with the laws as they are now, I'd actually be shocked if MS didn't have a ton of patents they can wave at Android.
Re:WP7 (Score:2)
Buying HTC (Score:3)
I currently own an HTC phone, and due to the bootloader being locked down I swore I'd never buy another. The recent announcement about future phones bootloaders being unlocked actually had me looking at the phones they'll have available in a few months. We're already paying roughly $10 a phone for all the media codec licenses; MP3, h.264, etc (none of which I actually use on my current phone), but paying Microsoft an extra $5 feels dirty.
Re:Buying HTC (Score:3)
It should feel dirty, even though you are not using them at least you did receive a usable codec for your media licensing fee, you wont get jack from Microsoft for the $5 fee.
Stallman and Android (Score:2)
I think this is probably one place Stallman would be saying "I told you so" with no great enthusiasm and one place where Adam Smith finds himself with an all mighty hard-on and smug self satisfied grin that will make your skin crawl now that Ole Shylock has his pound of flesh and lo, without a drop of blood being spilled.
Re:Stallman and Android (Score:2)
You do not understand Adam Smith, he believed in freedom of entry and exit to markets. Patents, and in particular software patents, are anathema to free entry and exit.
It's about indemnity (Score:2)
My understanding of this situation is that Apple and Microsoft both hold a lot of multitouch IP and went around filing suit against all of the Android phone manufacturers. Microsoft believes that their IP is superior to that of Apple's and offered a low-cost licensing program that included indemnity against any lawsuits by Apple - that is, in HTC's case against Apple, in exchange for the licensing agreement, Microsoft is picking up the tab for the legal bills and will cover any settlement costs incurred by HTC.
For HTC, this is a no-brainer - its cheap legal insurance. For Microsoft, this is a low-risk, high-reward strategy, especially if other manufacturers take the same deal: MSFT gets cash on the barrelhead plus, if they win the Apple vs HTC/other manufacturer suits, they are in a much better position to go after Apple directly for violating their multitouch IP.
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:2)
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:5, Funny)
according to Google Voice my girlfriend is my daughter.
Try again without that Kansas dialect.
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:3)
I used to think the same thing, but not any more. I can see several good reasons for the editors leaving story submissions intact, including leaving in the obvious typos and grammatical faux pas (and since this *is* a story about the legal problems of IP, this post is actually sort of on-topic)
1. The notice at the bottom of every page: "Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster." Slashdot benefits from a "safe harbor" by not editing comments. The same is true for story submissions.
2. Editing it, even by one word, might change the meaning. "Woman and child" is a lot different than "Woman with child", for example.
When the US and the Russians were going at it head-to-head, one Russian leader said something, and his translator "cleaned it up." The Russian noticed they didn't react as expected ("We disagree" is not the same as "We will f*ck you and sh*t on your grave"), and ordered "Now, tell them EXACTLY what I said."
Words make a difference. Editing them, without getting the original posters' agreement that that is what they actually submitted, can cause problems.
3. If anything, not editing a submission with bad grammar is more a reflection on the submitter than on the editors. If you don't want to look like an ignorant /(bas|f*ck|re|slash)tard/, it's not that hard - after all, you HAVE to hit preview at least once before you can submit a story.
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:2)
I think you're confusing the job of an editor with the task of correcting errors in spelling and grammar, which would be done by a proof-reader, not an editor.
Writers shouldn't require that their editors do proof-reading, instead concentrating on other aspects of what they write, such as relevance to the target market and recommending which parts need to be tightened up, re-arranged, or dropped entirely.
Spell checking and basic grammar are properly the responsibility of the writer. If you can't be bothered to proof-read your own stuff, then maybe you deserve to be haunted by the (grammar|spelling|style) nazis
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:2)
3. If anything, not editing a submission with bad grammar is more a reflection on the submitter than on the editors. If you don't want to look like an ignorant /(bas|f*ck|re|slash)tard/, it's not that hard - after all, you HAVE to hit preview at least once before you can submit a story.
Not every submitter is a native speaker, you insensitive clod! I should know: the only training I get is writing on the web & irc.
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:2)
It also removes the international flavour (notice the English as opposed to American spelling of flavour vs lavor)?
"Fixing" story submissions is simply neither a reason to further homogenize the net, nor justifiable from a legal standpoint.
Re:So we now we can't even write... (Score:3)
I'm confused.
How do I pronounce the words "f*ck" and "sh*t"?
Re:and that is why (Score:2)
There's always the iPhone. I wonder when they'll try on apple for size.
Re:and that is why (Score:2)
If you buy an iPhone, you're also giving Microsoft money. Every iPhone or iPad ships with actual implemented MS tech in them (Exchange support for a start).