This is not surprising. Ballmer doesn't like the idea of losing his job in disgrace and Windows 7 Phone, while competitive, is still based on Windows CE. If you ignore the GUI, the underlying OS is every bit as sophisticated and modern as... Symbian.
These are the patents Microsoft mentioned to the International Trade Commission. They may or may not the the patents mentioned in the Motorola lawsuit.
5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames
5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames
6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information
6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
I wonder what Google could do to invalidate these patents...
Most of them aren't as broad as the titles indicate (often the case), though they don't exactly seem like significant technical innovation either. The first two are part of the infamous set of FAT patents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table#FAT_licen...).
From what I read as part of the comments in the article, it seems Google already licensed some if not all of these patents (for Nexus one) and hence kind of validate them.
If WM7 is so important, why is it that Microsoft explicitly does not support syncing with 64-bit Outlook? This has led me to conclude that they've already given up, and when my PocketPC dies, I'll be looking for an Android.
His point was, what is so fundamentally different about the 64 bit Outlook APIs from the 32 bit ones that would fundamentally break syncing behavior with mobile phones?
And, "How was building in this kind of incompatibility a good thing, anyways?"
From what I've read of Microsoft culture, it was probably because the Outlook team wanted to sabotage the WinMo7 team for some inexplicable and kafkaesque scheme to make themselves look better. Then again, that's speculation.
I have no idea what causes this particular problem, but Office is notorious for just writing in-memory data structures to disk and calling it a "file format", which would make 32-bit and 64-bit incompatible.
I've heard people say that, for example, the fact that a Linux system is made of pieces from a million different projects is beneficial to its evolution because doing this kind of crap simply isn't an option. Solid, well-defined interfaces between components are a must (and if they aren't an absolute must, they won't exist - not necessarily because of laziness but because of deadlines) in systems that are made from lots of independent groups' components.
I think there is some merit to that idea, but Linux may have taken it too far when adding a syscall is like negotiating a multilateral treaty between the kernel, glibc, and applications.
Isn't this like taking out a giant ad saying win7-mobile is so technically poor - we have decided the only way to compete with Apple and Android is in court with software patents?
No. It is more like taking out a giant ad and saying we own lots of patents and rather than sit on a wall with a plaque we intend to extract value from them, because that is what our shareholders demand.
Microsoft used to say that Linux TCO was lower than Windows. Clearly that argument it totally inapplicable to consumer phones. Their choices are very limited at this point, so I expect the patent shakedowns to continue. So far, it is working like a charm... Amazon, Salesforce, HTC, etc. I see no reason why they'd stop.
Oh sure, they could try competing based on the quality of the product. But I think they realize this is too difficult for them to pull off now.
This really seems doomed. Yes, Android's "free" status got it traction. But it appears that people like it. So if Win7 can't surpass it on that measure, manufacturers are still going to want to use what their customers will buy.
I mean, even if there are patent fees, that just means the phone is a bit more expensive, right? And you'll pay more for something you want than for something you don't want, right? Price does not seem to me to be the driving factor in the handset market.
Microsoft is championing this FUD, but I think it's worth remembering that it didn't start with them. Apple and Oracle have set the "hidden cost of Android" conversation in motion with their lawsuits.
Redmond actually has some room to make this kind of case since some of these patents have already been licensed by HTC and (from what I read here) Google.
25 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 59.9 ms ] threadThese are the patents Microsoft mentioned to the International Trade Commission. They may or may not the the patents mentioned in the Motorola lawsuit.
5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames
5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames
6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information
6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
I wonder what Google could do to invalidate these patents...
And it's really weird to have patents issued over technology in use for almost 20 years and charge licensing for it.
How is that even a problem in the first place? I really will never understand some of the situations Microsoft gets themselves into.
And, "How was building in this kind of incompatibility a good thing, anyways?"
From what I've read of Microsoft culture, it was probably because the Outlook team wanted to sabotage the WinMo7 team for some inexplicable and kafkaesque scheme to make themselves look better. Then again, that's speculation.
Another = Unisys
Looks like the beginning of the end....
Oh sure, they could try competing based on the quality of the product. But I think they realize this is too difficult for them to pull off now.
I mean, even if there are patent fees, that just means the phone is a bit more expensive, right? And you'll pay more for something you want than for something you don't want, right? Price does not seem to me to be the driving factor in the handset market.
Redmond actually has some room to make this kind of case since some of these patents have already been licensed by HTC and (from what I read here) Google.
Go figure.