Samsung should go to court with them, and they should also cease any plans to launch WP7 phones. Microsoft is like a leech in the smartphone industry. They saw they can't make money with their own product, so they try to scare the little guys into paying up, to make it seem that they are right on this, and then go after the big guys, too.
Even if using Android costs manufacturers the same as using WP7, why would they use it over Android, when Android is a very proven product in the market, while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now, and dropping.
Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones? I think they are much more likely to get a lot of bad PR over this, because there are a lot of Android users and only a few WP7 users. This bad PR will focus negatively on their future products, like Windows 8. They are creating a negative halo effect around their products.
> and they should also cease any plans to launch WP7 phones
Not quite. I guess you're asumming that WP7 phones are only beneficial to MSFT instead of both MSFT & Samsung.
What if, i'm not saying it will happen and i find it unlikely, Google starts hardening the Android rules for new releases? Samsung, as well as other handset manufacturers, need to diversificate.
Samsung has bada, but that's for mid, mid-low handsets. HTC & Motorola have nothing afaik (correct me if i'm wrong).
> They saw they can't make money with their own product
Yup
> while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now, and dropping.
I'm superinterested in smartphone stats, where's that dropping in WP7? it's not "super-growing", but it's not dropping either.
> Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones?
Samsung has bada, but that's for mid, mid-low handsets
Did you know that Samsung sold more Bada phones in 2011 Q1 than all WinMo 7 phones sold in that same quarter?
Personally I think Microsoft is acting stupid.
What will happen if Google wins the Oracle lawsuit? I'll tell you what happens - Android phone makers will grow big balls. And I don't think pissing off Samsung is smart.
Bada is in a different segment of mobile devices - not
sure how you can compare WP7's sales with Bada's.
But they can be compared, as they are in the same market and more than that ... customers who purchased Bada phones, aren't able to purchase something else without a second contract for at least 1 year, or 2 years more commonly.
I'm not sure how you can't compare WP7 sales with Bada, since one of them is clearly preventing sales for the other.
Just see how it worked out for Apple.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Did I miss anything?
Well, first off, people who're shopping for a new phone will hardly care whether Samsung is paying MS patent money or not - lay person will see phone ad, not someone's press release on a completely unrelated matter.
Second, whether you like it or not, but Microsoft has had a lot of "firsts" in smart devices and tablets (whether brewed inside or acquired) and in the world with its existing patent system I can hardly hold their desire to leverage these firsts against Microsoft.
What happens if a judge rules in favor of a Microsoft injunction against selling Samsung-made Android phones? The trial could last years—or decades—and the whole time Samsung couldn't sell it's phones in the US.
Microsoft is already willing to license its patent to Samsung, and for a price that is known.
If the court didn't issue an injunction, Microsoft would not really be harmed - if Samsung lost the case later it's quite clear what the damages would be and Microsoft have already made it clear that just financial compensation would be acceptable.
If the court did issue an injunction, then Samsung could be irreparably harmed - and if Samsung subsequently win the case then it would be very difficult to make them whole again.
IANAL. I don't see why any sensible court would issue such an injunction.
Samsung got screwed over by Google to the point of having to ship a phone with a defective gps. It makes a lot of sense for them not to put all eggs in one basket.
They denied Samsung access to Skyhook, which was deeply integrated into a specific phone model. Samsung then pleaded to at least ship with Skyhook and remove it afterwards but Google denied them again with the threat of removing Android compatibility for that phone.
They don't have to explain it. They don't have to license these technologies under reasonable terms. They could, rather than seek royalties, seek injunctions. Or they could seek $500/unit in future payments (which would basically be an injunction). Although for past units shipped they'd get, at best, what one would consider reasonable.
Samsung is reportedly looking to lower the payment to nearer $10 per handset in exchange for an alliance which benefit the creation of new Windows Phone devices
Suggests (certainly doesn't prove) that Samsung agrees they're using MS IP, and they're just haggling over price. We have no idea from the article what the patents are for - it could be a hardware patent for all we know. Unlikely, yeah, but unless we know what the patent's for its tough to pass judgement. Tempting and entertaining, but tough.
Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is valid.
These patents have already been tested in court by other Android handset manufacturers and MS won. Samsung would only be increasing the cost, reducing the likelihood of a favourable partnership deal and postponing the inevitable.
Sorry, you're right, the other five didn't actually fight it, I'd thought one of them had.
What I would say thought is (a) Motorola's fight isn't going brilliantly and (b) when the likes of HTC - hardly small fry - think it's best just to license, there's probably something there.
So you're saying that if one handset manufacturer had had a legal ruling against them for patent violations relating to Android that wouldn't create a legal precedent?
Just because you've won a judgement or because you have received licensing payments does not ensure your negotiation position is invulnerable, whether this is due to the patent portfolio (and your own potential for infringements of that portfolio) or the particular domain knowledge or awareness of prior art that might be available to your opponent.
This particular business situation is fairly common, and can lead to so-called patent cross-licensing. A form of corporate truce. And there may well be consideration paid (and in either direction), but that's all subject to negotiation.
Is that information available though? My understanding is that when Microsoft threatens companies (Amazon, for example) that they don't reveal the specific patents that Linux infringes on. If that information were public then the open source community would make an effort to rectify the situation and Microsoft would lose their hand. It makes sense but it feels so wrong that it makes me cringe.
EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone in their right mind would pay a patent license without knowing the patents that they're supposed to be infringing?
How many millions of dollars do you think major multinationals tend to hand over on faith without seeing some sort of evidence and paperwork?
MS may create FUD by talking about patent infringements in general terms but the minute you ask someone for money you need to make your case.
The minute they go into court filings they're public and there would be nothing to stop someone like Amazon publishing or leaking them (you can't bring a case against someone on the condition they don't talk about it).
Not at all. Even if the patents are totally invalid or irrelevant, it would take years of multi-million(billion?) dollar patent litigation to prove it. Everyone loses. This way Samsung gets to ship Windows Phones, Android phones, and no one has to deal with a protracted and expensive (probably more expensive than this license) legal battle.
It wouldn't make millions of dollars to actually get the patent details, they'd need to be in the first court filing against you which you could see without even having a lawyer.
If the judge then found out that they'd not revealed the patent details to you before coming to court, he'd almost certainly kick the thing out for being frivolous (you're obliged to try to settle before coming to court and that would include actually telling someone what they'd done wrong).
i was trying to figure out what the patents were for as well. i dug around a bit and found a description from when Microsoft was suing Motorola for using Android:
"...synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power."
Unfortunately the obviousness test at this point is moot. Once the PTO signs off on it, overturning obviousness is very difficult. The prior art is a better way to go, especially if it is obvious the same technology as the patent.
BTW, what is the prior art on the two clearest ones (from the title -- which obviously doesn't mean the claims line up, but I suspect they do):
Meeting requets and group scheduling on a mobile device prior to 1997?
Common namespace for long and short filenames prior to 1993?
i hate that these bullet points are patent-able. i dont think the system was ever intended for this sort of granularity. we should protect big ideas, not functions necessary to run any modern mobile operating system.
Another question when a company signs a patent royalty agreement is there any contractual language that limits what they can say about the agreement in terms of terms of motivations? Yes, I know they have limits on whether they can mention the patent or patent specifics, etc..I am just wondering if Samsung cannot than make a PR campaign maligning MS for their patent trolling..
I am just wondering if Samsung cannot than make a PR campaign maligning MS for their patent trolling
I'm sure they could, but business is not like an episode of Degrassi Junior High. Samsung wants as many partners as possible. If a carrier wants WP devices, they want to be the one to make them. Android, they want to be there too. While Apple is suing Samsung, I'm sure Samsung would take more Apple orders if possible.
If anything, Samsung may push MS to collect royalties from other vendors, to level the playing field. And this is probably why MS is on a roll. If one company is going to pay royalties, they want to make it easier for MS to collect royalties from the next company. So they're more likely to provide collateral, in various ways, to strengthen Microsoft's claims. MS can use this to then go down the street to LG and say, "Samsung and HTC just openly admitted that this technology infringes. It appears you use it to."
I'm not a fan of the patent trolling, but I must say that I tip my hat to the guy in the MS IP group running this.
As much as I hate to use the word tax in this instance, it seems like it, and it hits your pocketbook my friend. The cost is passed onto you and I and it's nothing but a fictional tarrif. Smart people don't shell out $700 on a new device or get tangled up in a 3-year contract that puts a $2100 dent in your budget over 36 months. They curtail the hit by shopping thrifty. Additionally, market atmosphere that feeds off of luxury goods bragging rights tends to pull shit like this all the time. Create hype, add marketing and hysteria, cover all legal ends by patenting, cross-licensing, charge $COST + $MARGIN + $FEES. Galaxy SII campaign is a good example.
Now, there's no intention of sounding anti-capitalist, what have you, but the mobile market
seems like a giant red herring.
Smart people don't shell out $700 on a new device or get tangled up in a 3-year contract that puts a $2100 dent in your budget over 36 months
If you're going to use your phone anyway, why wouldn't you get "tied" into a contract? Contracts aren't made to screw you over - they're made to retain customers over a certain amount of time. Considering the heavy regular by the FCC in the US and the CCTS in Canada, you can't really even get screwed over.
This is completely aside from the point I'm trying to make, but you're never really tied into a contract if you're smart. Customer service reps at all the major phone companies are so poorly trained, that forcing a mistake is extremely easy. There are also other regulations in place, that makes escaping a contract without a fee, very possible.
Correct on many fronts, but the regulations you speak of are local to whichever market you're in. Here, in Canada, a person will be nicked $20 x number of months left plus I think $10 x number of months left on data plan. Altogether, it is capped at around $300 - $400 just to leave.
That is insane when you compare it to what it actually gets you.
I'm in Canada, and I've filed CCTS complaints for both Rogers and Bell. Bell refunded me about $500, and cancelled my plan for free. Rogers had a different issue, but fixed all my problems as well. It's just that most people don't realize there are regulating bodies, and thus do not pursue injustices.
In the US, Verizon's executive office called me with an apology, and fixed up the problems as well. Verizon took about 15 days to respond. Bell took about a month, and Rogers took about 5 months. In the end though, they compensate you as if they would've responded right away.
So max $300-400 cost to me on the very unlikely (for me) chance that I have to change service in the next 2 years vs. an absolutely certain several hundred $s off the price of the device? Doesn't seem that insane unless I'm missing something.
When the Nortel patent deal is approved they would double up on the $15.
Wondering what counter strategy other than pay up are Samsung and other Android handset vendors pondering.
At this point it just sounds like the OHA will have to do patent pooling and go head to head against leeches to either get a very favorable deal or not have to pay anything at all. Google+TI+Samsung+Sony and the 80 others (ZTE has LTE patents for e.g.) must have enough patents to realize something like this.
It would be terminally bad for Android if instead of paying the ever increasing royalties to MS, vendors just chose to ship WP7 instead. And WP7 is fast getting near more than good enough. The game could change in Microsoft's favor with Nokia at MSFT's disposal sooner than we think.
EDIT : S3 was bought by HTC, and they have a successful claim against Apple. Hmm.
65 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 133 ms ] threadEven if using Android costs manufacturers the same as using WP7, why would they use it over Android, when Android is a very proven product in the market, while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now, and dropping.
Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones? I think they are much more likely to get a lot of bad PR over this, because there are a lot of Android users and only a few WP7 users. This bad PR will focus negatively on their future products, like Windows 8. They are creating a negative halo effect around their products.
Yes.
> and they should also cease any plans to launch WP7 phones
Not quite. I guess you're asumming that WP7 phones are only beneficial to MSFT instead of both MSFT & Samsung.
What if, i'm not saying it will happen and i find it unlikely, Google starts hardening the Android rules for new releases? Samsung, as well as other handset manufacturers, need to diversificate.
Samsung has bada, but that's for mid, mid-low handsets. HTC & Motorola have nothing afaik (correct me if i'm wrong).
> They saw they can't make money with their own product
Yup
> while WP7 is not at all and it sits around 1% market share right now, and dropping.
I'm superinterested in smartphone stats, where's that dropping in WP7? it's not "super-growing", but it's not dropping either.
> Does Microsoft think this will make consumers more likely to buy their phones?
Consumers don't care about this.
Personally I think Microsoft is acting stupid.
What will happen if Google wins the Oracle lawsuit? I'll tell you what happens - Android phone makers will grow big balls. And I don't think pissing off Samsung is smart.
"And I don't think pissing off Samsung is smart."
Just see how it worked out for Apple.
I'm not sure how you can't compare WP7 sales with Bada, since one of them is clearly preventing sales for the other.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Did I miss anything?Apple sues Samsung for look-and-feel copying. At the same time Samsung does a lot of hardware-related stuff for Apple.
Second, whether you like it or not, but Microsoft has had a lot of "firsts" in smart devices and tablets (whether brewed inside or acquired) and in the world with its existing patent system I can hardly hold their desire to leverage these firsts against Microsoft.
What happens if a judge rules in favor of a Microsoft injunction against selling Samsung-made Android phones? The trial could last years—or decades—and the whole time Samsung couldn't sell it's phones in the US.
If the court didn't issue an injunction, Microsoft would not really be harmed - if Samsung lost the case later it's quite clear what the damages would be and Microsoft have already made it clear that just financial compensation would be acceptable.
If the court did issue an injunction, then Samsung could be irreparably harmed - and if Samsung subsequently win the case then it would be very difficult to make them whole again.
IANAL. I don't see why any sensible court would issue such an injunction.
This info was revealed in the Skyhook trial.
Suggests (certainly doesn't prove) that Samsung agrees they're using MS IP, and they're just haggling over price. We have no idea from the article what the patents are for - it could be a hardware patent for all we know. Unlikely, yeah, but unless we know what the patent's for its tough to pass judgement. Tempting and entertaining, but tough.
http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-dea...
Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is valid.
I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone else immediately settled.
What I would say thought is (a) Motorola's fight isn't going brilliantly and (b) when the likes of HTC - hardly small fry - think it's best just to license, there's probably something there.
This particular business situation is fairly common, and can lead to so-called patent cross-licensing. A form of corporate truce. And there may well be consideration paid (and in either direction), but that's all subject to negotiation.
EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
How many millions of dollars do you think major multinationals tend to hand over on faith without seeing some sort of evidence and paperwork?
MS may create FUD by talking about patent infringements in general terms but the minute you ask someone for money you need to make your case.
If the judge then found out that they'd not revealed the patent details to you before coming to court, he'd almost certainly kick the thing out for being frivolous (you're obliged to try to settle before coming to court and that would include actually telling someone what they'd done wrong).
"...synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power."
http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/01/android-lawsuits/
• 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
• 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.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/10/microsoft-sues...
http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2...
I really hate software patents and the trolls that abuse them.
BTW, what is the prior art on the two clearest ones (from the title -- which obviously doesn't mean the claims line up, but I suspect they do):
Meeting requets and group scheduling on a mobile device prior to 1997?
Common namespace for long and short filenames prior to 1993?
I'm sure they could, but business is not like an episode of Degrassi Junior High. Samsung wants as many partners as possible. If a carrier wants WP devices, they want to be the one to make them. Android, they want to be there too. While Apple is suing Samsung, I'm sure Samsung would take more Apple orders if possible.
If anything, Samsung may push MS to collect royalties from other vendors, to level the playing field. And this is probably why MS is on a roll. If one company is going to pay royalties, they want to make it easier for MS to collect royalties from the next company. So they're more likely to provide collateral, in various ways, to strengthen Microsoft's claims. MS can use this to then go down the street to LG and say, "Samsung and HTC just openly admitted that this technology infringes. It appears you use it to."
I'm not a fan of the patent trolling, but I must say that I tip my hat to the guy in the MS IP group running this.
Now, there's no intention of sounding anti-capitalist, what have you, but the mobile market seems like a giant red herring.
If you're going to use your phone anyway, why wouldn't you get "tied" into a contract? Contracts aren't made to screw you over - they're made to retain customers over a certain amount of time. Considering the heavy regular by the FCC in the US and the CCTS in Canada, you can't really even get screwed over.
This is completely aside from the point I'm trying to make, but you're never really tied into a contract if you're smart. Customer service reps at all the major phone companies are so poorly trained, that forcing a mistake is extremely easy. There are also other regulations in place, that makes escaping a contract without a fee, very possible.
That is insane when you compare it to what it actually gets you.
In the US, Verizon's executive office called me with an apology, and fixed up the problems as well. Verizon took about 15 days to respond. Bell took about a month, and Rogers took about 5 months. In the end though, they compensate you as if they would've responded right away.
Wondering what counter strategy other than pay up are Samsung and other Android handset vendors pondering.
At this point it just sounds like the OHA will have to do patent pooling and go head to head against leeches to either get a very favorable deal or not have to pay anything at all. Google+TI+Samsung+Sony and the 80 others (ZTE has LTE patents for e.g.) must have enough patents to realize something like this.
It would be terminally bad for Android if instead of paying the ever increasing royalties to MS, vendors just chose to ship WP7 instead. And WP7 is fast getting near more than good enough. The game could change in Microsoft's favor with Nokia at MSFT's disposal sooner than we think.
EDIT : S3 was bought by HTC, and they have a successful claim against Apple. Hmm.
What a remarkable sentence. I think my favorite part is "extend rights", but there's a lot to enjoy and it's hard to pick just a few words.