So let me get this straight. Not only does Microsoft have useless/trivial patents, but they shouldn't have gotten them in the first place because of prior art. Plus, with those patents they get to claim a license fee as large as the license fee for their whole OS - WP7. On top of that with those useless patents they get to act as if they owned the whole of Android, and get to dictate manufacturers how to make their Android phones?
I have no words for Microsoft, they're simply despicable and I don't know how anyone could support such a company that has proven time and time again they will adopt such tactics to destroy their competition. They've probably done a lot of this behind the scenes with Linux and other browsers before. We just didn't find out about most of it. And we almost didn't find out about this, either, if it wasn't for B&N.
But what I don't understand how could HTC, Samsung and all the others agree to this so easily? HTC has grown 3x every year for the past 2 years because of Android, and Samsung has become the largest smartphone manufacturer surpassing both Nokia and Apple thanks to Android, and they say nothing against Microsoft or try to protect the ecosystem that's been feeding them?
Shame on them for not standing up to Microsoft, and kudos to B&N, which wasn't even a manufacturer not too long ago, for having the guts to stand up Microsoft and protect the Android ecosystem.
Time and time again I’ve read people lauding “The New Microsoft,” the company that created XBox and Mango, the company that no longer behaves like the old, nasty monopolist of old. Such plaudits remind me of someone who is dating a wonderful man who has been divorced four times, but this time it’s going to be different.
I was one of them. In fact I thought the Apple had surpassed MS in its assertion of essentially useless patents. Guess I was wrong.
On some level this is good. Once software development becomes dominated my lawyers the markets will find ways to shift away from the US market. So this problem will eventually solve itself: Either the patent system is fixed, or innovation is going to happen somewhere else soon.
Interesting that the tone here when it's Apple suing over flimsy multitouch, pinch-to-zoom and design patents that look like a rectangle(and demanding that they stop production, not even ask for a licensing fee) is they're protecting their innovation, but when it's Microsoft it's all about a evil monopolist.
Reminds me of the argument that Apple's winning because they derive the most profit out of the phone business inspite of Android's marketshare, but Apache's winning in the web server business inspite of Microsoft making the most money out of it.
Actually, a lot of us (or at least, me) are opposed to Apple's lawsuits as well. The fanboy crowd (of any group) tends to make a lot more noise than the majority.
My stance on the Apple patent mess has been that they're making legal use of bad patent laws. Hate the laws that allow those patents, not the patent-holders.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is going above and beyond just exercising patent rights that shouldn't exist. Asking someone to sign an NDA before you will tell them which of your patents they're infringing is so despicable that this should be an automatic win for B&N due to the doctrine of unclean hands.
Well, Apple, to be fair, seems to be doing it's attack in the public. Microsoft on the other hand it trying to backstab Android.
But I currently hate both companies for the bullshit they are pulling. What happened to building better stuff and winning? Seems Microsoft gave up on that a long long time ago (did they ever make the best of something? all I can think of is the first couple Word and Excel releases)
To add to that: I do feel Apple's lawsuits are a problem. But if we're going to make any meaningful progress, we must start with software patents.
Microsoft's dealings with Android manufacturers offer a golden opportunity to set the precedent that could invalidate software patents in general.
That's too big an opportunity to miss.
Apple's patent suits are (unfortunately?) relevant and modern patents... it's harder to get a foothold against what Apple is doing. Or, in other words, since my viewpoint is not the only viewpoint, I don't see as clear a case that we should invalidate Apple's suits. They have some merit.
For anyone who has followed MCSFT over the years, this kind of behavior comes as no surprise. What does surprise me though is how many people (usually younger) think MCSFT can do no wrong, as evidenced by Gate's significant philanthropy. I don't think this event will do much to sway those people from having that opinion, but it does seem to be a teachable moment.
One might think that HTC, Samsung et al have little direct interest in defending the free use of Android - as the Android OS lowers the barriers to entry for other new (start-up?) manufacturers. It might be that they see the Microsoft tax as being well spent.
Do what, exactly? Google has already stated multiple times that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on. Microsoft hasn't brought any claims against Google, just people who implement the phones.
Google could probably sue Microsoft for slander, but again, Microsoft hasn't been going around telling the world that Android is infringing on it's patents. They, Microsoft, just go to the manufacturing companies, and even then they are making sure that manufacturing companies sign NDAs to keep the information from going out into the public.
And Google can't sue them to say, 'Tell me what you got.' Because that is fishing, and a form of intimidation, I think. I don't know the right legal term for it, but I do know you can't do it. So Google's hands seem to have been tied up until this point. Now that there are some information in the public, maybe they'll do something now.
Google is partially involved via the Motorola merger agreement (which forbids settling Motorola's patent disputes with Apple and Microsoft, IIRC) and will fully involved once the merger closes, of course.
A lack of evidence does not equal evidence of the negative. In other words, just because you can't see Google working to defend Android, doesn't mean they aren't orchestrating a defense behind the scenes.
Don't forget that the FAT patents are necessary for interoperability with Windows. I think B&N should have mentioned that instead of claiming they are not infringing. Mention in particular how Windows, the dominant desktop OS, support only patented filesystems (FAT, exFAT, NTFS).
One of the reasons for MS being able to extract such amounts (same as their whole OS lic costs) from HW manufactures like HTC & Samsung is the continuing almost monopoly of MS Windows as a desktop OS in business environments. And – as said - MS Windows only supports MS patented file systems directly (fat, fat32, NTFS). So as a HW manufacturer if you take the simple route you use one of those fs on your devices. That's how this story is told reg FAT patents.
Samsung, HTC e.a. how about writing a Windows driver & Front-end app (e.g. similar to the Nokia or Blackberry desktop apps) that can read a non MS patented file system from your devices – would that not be much cheaper or is their more to this story?
The argument that Microsoft's patents should be voided due to prior art does not make their assertion of those patents illegitimate (illegitimacy of the entire patent process is also irrelevant). The voiding of patents due to prior art or obviousness is a central purpose of the patent courts, and Barnes and Nobel's claims are no less plausible on cursory examination than Microsoft's.
</IANAL>
HTC and Samsung settled with Microsoft because they are financially sound enough to pick their battles and are focused on selling phones rather than ideological battles regarding the merits of Android and Google's approach versus that of Microsoft. I strongly suspect that manufacturers value Android to the degree it contributes to their bottom line and that partnering with Microsoft to license patents is seen as the most beneficial strategy...for both parties.
It's just busines - HTC and Samsung cannot "get Android on the phone" while Microsoft has operators standing by.
The way you phrase it, it sounds like B&N is suing MS for ideological reasons, but they are profit-maximizing capitalists just like everyone else in this game.
The difference, IMHO, is that B&N has very little history as a consumer electronics company (and therefore has no defensive patents to bring to the table), but sees cheap ebook readers as its only hope to be a viable company in the long run (and therefore does not want MS license fees to be a perpetual drag on their profits).
If B&N became a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony or Dell, they would settle this lawsuit in a week.
The parent comment appeared to be assuming an consumer ideologies were relevant to the actions of various companies with interests in Android licensing or litigation.
I agree that B&N is struggling for its existence and I believe that their actions are more consistent with desperation than with an intelligible long term strategy for growth in a changing market.
The drag on profits argument is pretty weak in my opinion since the real money from Nook sales should come from ongoing content sales rather than the sale of the initial hardware, i.e. profits are more dependent on the viability of the Nook ecosystem than on the cost of manufacturing the device.
It might be argued that essentially, B&N is choosing to litigate Google's approach to IP while Google clearly has attempted to disassociate itself from the IP issues which surround Android. And furthermore, that B&N is choosing to enter a litigation arena, patents, in which it has very little institutional expertise.
"But what I don't understand how could HTC, Samsung and all the others agree to this so easily?"
Right here is where Occam's Razor makes short work of B&N's claims that all MS has is junk patents.
Samsung is going to write MS a $100 million dollar check next year for these patents. Samsung signed the NDA and saw all those patents and has a huge legal department and still decided to pay up.
I buy their products and enjoy their technology even while i abhor some of their business practices. I'm sure plenty of people hate Apple's and Google's business practices too, but still use their stuff.
What can you do? All of this is nothing compared to the actions of the corporation known as the US Government who whores out her super powers for evil the world over. Yet, I still pay my taxes and live here because I'm being practical.
At some point you realize that the whole corporatocracy is against you having any kind of freedom and there's quite literally nothing you can do about it. So, you might as well enjoy your life. Maybe that's the wrong conclusion but at the least I know that Microsoft is just playing in a game and that they didn't invent the game.
It's true that the impact of a single individual is very small, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't do anything. I guess it's similar to the whole Nike fiasco where many people stopped buying their products due to their factories employing underpaid children. It's a matter of principle.
Personally, I avoid Microsoft products whenever I can simply before I don't need to use them anymore. There's plenty of great alternatives that are better in many respects.
I hear what you're saying. Personally, I would have to change my entire life to do so. Microsoft basically puts food on my table. I enjoy building enterprise and desktop software, developer tools, etc. I don't enjoy building web software or mobile apps. Windows is the best fit for my skills.
If I am going to change my life that much, I would rather change careers and become a travelling monk, a yoga instructor, a physical therapist or a vegan food truck vendor. Actually, my plan would be to finish a yoga instructor's course while going to school for a physical therapy license and mastering my cooking at home. THEN, I would roam the country cooking for and healing people. I'm still thinking about it though.
At the time they were approached by MS they still had some contracts with MS for MS-devices...so I imagine MS stated license or loose our business..and remember fighting a trivial patent is not easy as far as costs are concerned or the recovery of said costs in a court award..
IN HTC and Samsung cases I think MS device business is somewhat 15th of their total business??
>They've probably done a lot of this behind the scenes with Linux and other browsers before.
Other browsers? Like what? Opera? Doubt we wouldn't hear of it.
> HTC has grown 3x every year for the past 2 years because of Android,
Sure... but just remember that HTC came out from being an ODM for HP and Dell to make Windows Mobile devices and then made a lot of Windows Mobile devices for a long time, which gave them a ton of valuable knowledge about how to make smartphones.
Google is the one that needs to indemnify their OS and make companies like Apple and Microsoft think twice about trying to charge patent license fees.
Remember that Microsoft isn't too happy with the current state of patents and tried a lot (see the Bilski case) to to reduce the burden of proof placed on the alleged violators. If they had succeeded, they would've weakened their own patent suits substantially but they seem to be okay with that.
I don't follow that logic. Bad patent systems are bad systems, and it's good that MS argued against them. That doesn't make it "OK" for them to exploit the system they argued against. Bad behavior is still bad behavior.
> then made a lot of Windows Mobile devices for a long time, which gave them a ton of valuable knowledge about how to make smartphones.
Making a Windows Mobile phone only teaches you how not to make a smartphone. Not to say it's not valuable knowledge.
> Microsoft isn't too happy with the current state of patents
Something that, oddly, doesn't prevent them from using ridiculous patents exactly the way they don't want patents used against them. Their own conduct invalidates their previous position as they seem more than happy to milk every Android licensee until they bleed.
From 2002 to 2007, the only smartphones in the game were Blackberry and Windows Mobile(and Palm?). The hardware was slow and not mature and the software was slow, clunky and needed a stylus. Battery life was pretty bad, and task management sucked and ate up the battery in no time. Microsoft didn't seem to care too much about Windows Mobile and reportedly just had 5 or so people on the SDK team.
The phones like the iPaq, Axim and many HTC devices saw decent success in the marketplace. The iPhone came and changed the game by leveraging advances in hardware with very good software.
Thus the sneering and snark at a Windows Mobile phone in the GP post. Windows Phone is a completely different beast and seems to have learned from WM though.
I would add that it looks like Microsoft had never considered WM to be a consumer phone: there were competing with RIM and Palm by throwing more enterprise-worth features, not caring about UX in general (other than maintaining UI styling across applications) and letting hadware vendors ship any hardware that minimally does the job and saves vendors' money. With all due respect, Apple was in an unique position: they had underserved consumer market in front of them and right hardware became available (or the processes were advanced enough to accomodate Apple's requirements in system design).
BTW, ever wonder why Apple doesn't ship LTE iPhone? The hardware quality is not there yet and LTE firmwares are still work in progress.
>Making a Windows Mobile phone only teaches you how not to make a smartphone. Not to say it's not valuable knowledge.
You seem to have no idea how hard it is to make mobile hardware. There's a ton of work involved including having to make arrangements with the suppliers, sourcing components,etc. Being a profitable incumbent is a huge advantage compared to a newcomer.
Even if HTC gained that knowledge from their time making WinMo phones and not from their time making hardware for Dell and HP, that knowledge belongs to them and has nothing to do with the OS their phones were running.
> You seem to have no idea how hard it is to make mobile hardware.
I do, trust me. That's why I value highly the knowledge of how not to make a mobile phone. Like I said, most WinMo phones are lessons on what not to do - styluses, resistive touchscreens (agreed there was a time capacitive touch didn't exist) hard-to-use multitasking and an inflexible, hard to customize OS (I felt that pain too, but, luckily, Windows CE was almost ready to run on our hardware).
There is, indeed, a ton of work involved and zillions of ways things can (and often do) go wrong, but, luckily, you don't have to build Windows Mobile phones to learn that. The Nokia folks, for instance, always had top notch hardware and never built a WinMo phone.
Microsoft is the little-guy using patents to defend themselves against the big-bad-monopolist. This is one of many regulations that promotes innovation. Trust me, I went to school.
As always, if you shouldn't look at patents, don't click to read the rest of the article.
Groklaw is right to write that. If you write software that will ever be in the public eye, you shouldn't look at software patents because they make you more liable for damages in infringement cases.
The constitution authorized congress to create a system "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by publishing information that innovators would want to look at. The system we have now hinders progress, not just in corner cases but across the entire software field.
Can you imagine anyone writing that sentence if we had a patent system that worked as intended? I can't. If the patent system promoted progress, innovators would constantly be reading patents.
I've yet to read a patent that actually contains useful information. I'm sure they're out there, but generally they seem to be written in as obfuscated and generic way as possible, as their sole purpose is to enable litigation.
You might be safe with reading expired patents, but don't take my word for it. I do sometimes and get a kick out of it. Where would we be without a patent for a "Baseball cap for pigtail hairstyles"? http://www.latepatents.net/5799334.htm (Their site seems to be dead in places, but you can still browse through a few of them with google https://www.google.com/search?q=site:latepatents.net )
Academic papers at Arxiv and elsewhere are far more useful.
As someone that has been on the defending side (legal representative) of a patent troll attack which is essentially the role MS is playing here it saddens you to see how low people can go with using the patent system. One of the case I analyzed was a patent that literally did not cover the technology and only a very loosely interpreting judge could interpret it as so. But the cost (at least 0.5 - 1 million dollars until a judge will even see your argument) are so staggering that we in fact encourage parties to throw around bs patents to racketeer money from parties that actually contribute positively to society by creating innovative products. Of course this also fuels the market for filing and selling/buying up bs patents.
The only way I can describe it is that its like a artery of someone that keeps eating bacon long after their doctor advised them to stop. The space keeps getting blocked up more and more. It is inevitable that serious problems are bound to occur and cause ever greater friction to innovation.
With direct patent troll cost (loss of company values) calculated for the last years by BU at about half a trillion plus blocking of innovation, loss of jobs and indirect costs to companies at one point society has to question the priorities: To make (very) few much richer and loosing whole industries or to create an environment where the whole economy can prosper.
History has some good examples on that e.g. from the first industrial revolution that was led by the UK. After Prussia / Germany completely relaxed IP laws it became the leading industrial nation in Europe. The UK where strong special interest groups pushed through stringent IP & patent law lost it leadership role & dominance of the industry and has till today not been able to recover from that.
On patent trolls & the 500 billion:
The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272)
Abstract:
In the past, non-practicing entities (NPEs) - firms that license patents without producing goods - have facilitated technology markets and increased rents for small inventors. Is this also true for today’s NPEs? Or are they “patent trolls” who opportunistically litigate over software patents with unpredictable boundaries? Using stock market event studies around patent lawsuit filings, we find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010, mostly from technology companies. Moreover, very little of this loss represents a transfer to small inventors. Instead, it implies reduced innovation incentives.
Its quite the chance that that paper on Patent trolls was written by my Patent Law Prof from BU. Who takes in mind a well balanced view on this difficult subject.
Also some great TIL about German vs Uk innovation.
Even most patent attny's that are more than happy making money off this broken systems excesses agree that there many serious problems abound
That crazy cost is part of why I've been thinking we should have some equiviliant of a public defender for civil matters. The idea is the plaintiff would have to pay for the defendant's lawyer up to the cost he is paying for his lawyer, but only if the defendant chooses to use the presumably less good public defender. This wouldn't change anything when a large company or rich person is the defendant, as they won't want to user the public defender, unless the lawsuit was so frivolous the company would rather not spend any money on it. The biggest down sides would be when two ordinary people sue each other, I don't think this is a big deal because poor people tend not to sue other poor people outside of small claims court, and if they do they better be planing to get much more than twice their lawyer cost.
Roughly it will take about a year minimum of lawyering until the argument reaches the desk of a judge. Especially since patents are federal cases. You have prepare arguments, answer all requests, prove jurisdiction, etc and take depositions of everything. A partners time is north of 500$ an hour that adds up verrry quickly when you have a team working for you
Well that sounds really harsh. Can't you just try to do most of it yourself instead of paying someone $500/hr? I mean you are innocent until proven guilty.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle from criminal law. In the US, I believe that principle does not apply directly to civil law. A lawyer will have to explain if there is any mapping at all.
But, regarding the do-it-yourself-part, no, not really. First, the amount of work you have to do is a full-time job. Most people already have a full-time job, so it's not an option to deal with a civil case full-time. Second, there are many rules and regulations that a lay-person will just not know. It's not feasible for them to deal with a civil suit on their own. And, unlike criminal cases, in the US, you have no right to a lawyer for civil cases.
Not a lawyer (though at some point I should just say screw it and go to law school), but there's really no mapping as far as I know.
One of the things to remember about civil lawsuits are that the parties are generally treated as if they are on equal footing, and the standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".
The criminal justice system is setup to mitigate the advantage of the government over the accused in a case that could result in loss of freedom (or even loss of life). The civil "justice" system is there to resolve disputes between theoretically equal parties in cases that mostly come down to money.
In practice, of course, our adversarial system gets thrown completely out of whack by that same money, but for the moment, the law is what it is.
They are a known, serial monopolist and at this point MSFT deserves the corporate death penalty. They should go ahead and force the company to split into consumer software, enterprise software, Windows, and hardware companies like the should have done more than a decade ago.
EDIT: A well reasoned rebuttal is worth a thousand downvotes. But my fault for getting involved in religious wars...
EDIT: I also want to note that whoever is doing this is not content to downvote this comment, but is also looking up my comment history and downvoting old comment of mine (fair warning to anyone posting in this thread)
3am: are you sure that your old comments are being downvoted? For a normal user, the "down arrow" option disappears after a day, and it doesn't look like you have any recent comments other than this one. So if they are indeed being downvoted, it's being done by someone with more access than a standard user. This seems unlikely, although not impossible.
This is a court filing by a litigant. It's hardly an unbiased source. The assertions of an interested party should not be an excuse to avoid critical thinking.
But hey, it's in line with what most of HN thinks about patents, so we're all willing to take it at face value.
> Take a look especially at Exhibit D, where there is a long detailing of the incredibly insignificant patents Microsoft has the nerve to use against Android, claiming control of the entire operating system with what is pretty much a handful of stupid patents no one really needs or which are so trivial that the fees it claims become outrageous. At least that is Barnes & Noble's position. It made my blood boil to read it.
Doesn't sound like pj is doing much critical thinking either. Just accepting B&N's assertions at face value, because they line up with common "knowledge" about patents.
Absolutely. I have no problem stipulating to stuff like that, because it would be ridiculous for B&N to lie about it or get it wrong. But that's not the kind of assertions I'm talking about.
This is a legal denial of service attack (assuming B+N's story is substantially accurate). I wonder what kind of penalties are for that behavior - I assume being ordered to pay the other side's legal bills is a possibility.
It's pretty sad that Microsoft has sunk this low: a company that is so afraid of its ability to compete honestly in the market that it becomes a multi-billion-dollar patent troll.
I'd very much liked if someone called bullsh*t on the Microsoft's patents and then prepared joint lawsuit of all companies against Microsoft's "agreements". They look more like racketeering than cooperation.
If I want to sue someone for my (alleged) patents, why not make me pay the legal costs for both sides, as the case goes to court (not after), until the case is decided one way or the other? that way, if a big fat ass company sues a small guy, the small guy can at least try to fight in court. May be he'll lose, but he'll at least have a chance to fight - it'll also make these big guys think a bit before suing for patents?
MS has no obligation to license their patents at a reasonable price or even at all. You may say the patents should be overturned, but that's a question for the USPTO and the courts. Their job is to maximize profits using their patents.
It's still very unclear to me what MS is doing that is illegal. They have no mobile monopoly. And "demanding" design guidelines certainly isn't illegal.
BN can sue because MS isn't nice to them, but that's about all I see.
The problem is not that they have a monopoly on mobile (having a monopoly is not illegal), but that they are using their monopoly of desktop operating systems to exert pressure on competitors in another market (via the FAT "requirement" - because if you don't use FAT your gizmo won't work with 90%+ of the computers sold). This can be interpreted as abusing a monopoly.
Another way to see it is that Microsoft is one of the richest companies on Earth because of their monopolies and when they use their prodigious resources to force companies to cave instead of litigate (because they could easily litigate said companies out of existence) it's an indirect abuse of monopoly.
This is what I though on about 5 minutes. There's probably a whole lot more in there waiting for more dedicated brains.
Not defending the patent for FAT - nobody prohibits device OEMs shipping a piece of software that manages data on the device without requiring the FAT to be present.
Those devices will offer a more complicated experience because they have to do something Microsoft doesn't have to because they have the desktop OS monopoly creating a competitive burden to everyone else. Looks like leveraging a monopoly on one market to gain advantages on another to me, even if it is a subtle way.
All they have to do to leverage their desktop-related monopolies is to sit tight and do nothing. And that's why it's really bad.
It worked out for Apple/iTunes just fine. I don't like this approach (and do not buy i-devices for that reason), but it is quite viable if executed right.
The main claim here is that MS is using patents that are unrelated to the technology in question. If that is done willfully, then that is potentially anticompetitive. That is different than simply asking for a high price.
M$ needed to use all their ammo to counter Android. It already crossed 52% marketshare http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1848514. I am able to see their (M$) desperation but it never going to help them.
I love that B&N's lawyers cited Netscape Navigator 2.0b3 as prior art (with respect to background image loading in a web browser). I wish HTC and Samsung's lawyers were as clever with respect to Apple's bogus "Linkify" patent ("Live URLs" from 2.0b1 in that case).
B&N's Nook used Android. MS claims to have patents that cover Android stuff. MS wanted B&N to pay licence fees for that patented technology. B&N wanted to find out what exactly was covered. MS claimed that to disclose that information (which is in a public patent) they'd have to get B&N to NDA. Eventually, a list of patents arrive, and they're all for tiny stupid trivial stuff or for really old stuff; yet MS was trying to charge for them as if they were worth a full OS.
>Microsoft has shown its intent to drive out other open source software using overaggressive patent enforcement. The Microsoft dominated MPEG-LA consortium recently sent out a request for patents that would cover Google's VP8 video codec, and one company has already filed a private antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA for this behavior.3 MPEG-LA is a patent pool organized to collect and license patents on the H.264/MPEG video codec, a method of digitally encoding video files and decoding them for playback. Google is attempting to introduce its own codec, the VP8 codec, to compete with the MPEG codec. Once again, by seeking non-essential patents to assert offensively rather than defensively, Microsoft intends to drive out competition from open source developers.
Is MPEG-LA really dominated by MS in any sense of the word? Just curious.
MS seems to be actually paying them more for licenses in the end than what they get for a few patents they have in the pool. Not sure about Apple.
In any case, they're supporting VP8/WebM via user installed plugins in IE and have stated that they're not shipping it with the OS because they're afraid of patent trolls suing them for very high damages because they would be liable for hundreds of millions of Windows licenses.
Isn't the fact that their funding comes disproportionately from Microsoft (I'm just assuming you're right, obviously I don't have numbers) and argument for the MPEG-LA being "dominated" by Microsoft? They need MSFT more than it needs them.
>Isn't the fact that their funding comes disproportionately from Microsoft
I never stated that their revenue comes disproportionately from Microsoft. What I stated was that Microsoft pays them more than what Microsoft gets from it for Microsoft patents in the pool, which is a completely different thing.
I think there's a communication gap here. Let me try to explain with some made up numbers.
Lets say Microsoft pays the MPEG-LA $50 million/year and gets back $2 million/yr for their patents. So net payment to MPEG-LA is $48 mil/yr.
But MPEG-LA has a LOT of other licensees like Apple that licenses it for Quicktime, iMovie, all OS X and iOS devices, Google for YouTube, Adobe for Flash etc. etc. Lets say they all pay them $452 mil/yr. So total revenue of the MPEG-LA is $500mil/yr but Microsoft's share is not disproportionately large in that number.
I don't know about MS's share in MPEG-LA's revenues, all I stated was that they paid them more than what they got back in licenses.
Yeah, this is a communication issue. When I said "disproportionately", you apparently heard something like "predominately". But that's not what I meant.
The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests. You are apparently trying to take that same fact and argue in the opposite direction, and I don't think the logic works that way.
>The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests.
I don't see how it's Microsoft's choice to pay more or less. The terms are pretty clear and the same for all.
I also don't see how paying more will allow it to have more influence on the MPEG-LA, they're more like a customer. That's a pretty torturous argument to make.
MPEG-LA needs to keep Microsoft as a customer. Your biggest customer often has more influence on your business model than your smallest customer. If Microsoft can show they are willing to make moves to no longer be a customer of MPEG-LA, MPEG-LA will make moves to show that Microsoft should continue to be a customer.
> Is MPEG-LA really dominated by MS in any sense of the word? Just curious.
I have no idea.
> MS seems to be actually paying them more for licenses in the end than what they get for a few patents they have in the pool. Not sure about Apple.
Microsoft pays more, but they get more out of it. The more entrenched H.264 is, the bigger the barrier to entry for competition. If your competition has to pay the royalties, and you want to compete against Microsoft, the competition is at a disadvantage by being forced to pay those royalties.
Groklaw used to be good a while ago, but now seems to have degenerated into extreme bias against Microsoft. We do not see such articles written by PJ on Apple, for example. While they're still interesting, they need to be taken with a large dose of salt.
I think the comment relates to the caution one might wish to use when evaluating the selection of information for presentation given that there is some evidence of an editorial bias on the part of Groklaw, e.g.:
"incredibly insignificant patents Microsoft has the nerve to use against Android"
I have no words for Microsoft, they're simply despicable and I don't know how anyone could support such a company that has proven time and time again they will adopt such tactics to destroy their competition. They've probably done a lot of this behind the scenes with Linux and other browsers before. We just didn't find out about most of it. And we almost didn't find out about this, either, if it wasn't for B&N.
But what I don't understand how could HTC, Samsung and all the others agree to this so easily? HTC has grown 3x every year for the past 2 years because of Android, and Samsung has become the largest smartphone manufacturer surpassing both Nokia and Apple thanks to Android, and they say nothing against Microsoft or try to protect the ecosystem that's been feeding them?
Shame on them for not standing up to Microsoft, and kudos to B&N, which wasn't even a manufacturer not too long ago, for having the guts to stand up Microsoft and protect the Android ecosystem.