Barnes & Noble Wants Microsoft's Patents Probed

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
B&N really need to be careful here, if it goes to an investigation and it is indisputable proved that Android has Microsoft elements then it will go very bad for Google very quickly.

Google have been happy to let hardware vendors do licensing deals so far but this could open a gateway for a direct action against them and maybe even an injunction.

If B&N lose, Google will not be happy, let's hope it is all just sabre rattling and it goes away.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
396
0
18,930
[citation][nom]alikum[/nom]Again, another company expecting free lunch. They think they can just come up with devices, preload it with an OS they happen to find FREE and sell it for profit? When you take an open source and make it commercial, it's no longer open source and therefore, patent holders have the right to sue, or in this case, license. To Barnes & Noble, wait til Apple comes after you and you'd be wishing you had entered a licensing deal with Microsoft.[/citation]
In my opinion, it sounds like BN is fighting abusive M$ practices.

Apple will learn it's lesson, too. They are basing their patents on things that have been public domain for years. Samsung presented evidence of that in court by showing that one of Apple's patents had been shown in a movie a long time ago, and sorry, crApple fan, in the US at least, you cannot be granted a patent for something that was shown in a film.
 

70camaross396

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2010
23
0
18,560
To me a patent troll is a company that doesnt make anything (ie. RAMBUS) and just creates patents so they can sue people that create something similar. RAMBUS whole busniess model is based on that.

Microsoft on the other hand does make products. some are great (Windows 7) and some bad (Microsoft BOB). In this case Microsoft has the right sue them for infringing on there patents. Additionally Microsoft is offering to license the patents to them for use, unlike Apple that just wants to stifle compition by blocking Samsung tablets. Apple didnt even offer to settle or license the patent to them. they just dont want anything on the market that can compete with Ipad.
 

willwayne

Distinguished
May 24, 2011
52
0
18,580
At least Microsoft extends licenses for its patents, unlike Apple and it's "Magsafe" plugs (a similar thing to what's on my deep fryer which I've had for years before Apple adopted this same tech)
 

svdb

Distinguished
Apr 24, 2009
93
0
18,580
Nobody should be able to patent software. Copyrights yes, patents no since they only allow patent trolling.
 
G

Guest

Guest
back_by_demand: That must be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.

You are suggesting that everybody knows the patents are bullschit, but Google may be in trouble if by the grace of Lucifer that some corrupt judge actually decides they are valid and reasonable, so it's best to go on acting like they're reasonable and paying Microsoft for nothing, rather than risk the patents actually being deemed valid and therefore nobody having to pay Microsoft. Of course, it's simply extorsion by MS and their team of lawyers and lobbyists, I'm sure plenty of people paid the mafia for "protection".

News Flash: Once approved by the USPTO, patents are considered valid until proven invalid, not invalid until proven valid a 2nd time in a court of law. Jeezus man, that was a fail.
 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
[citation][nom]comment_watch[/nom]back_by_demand: That must be one of the dumbest posts I've ever read.You are suggesting that everybody knows the patents are bullschit, but Google may be in trouble if by the grace of Lucifer that some corrupt judge actually decides they are valid and reasonable, so it's best to go on acting like they're reasonable and paying Microsoft for nothing, rather than risk the patents actually being deemed valid and therefore nobody having to pay Microsoft. Of course, it's simply extorsion by MS and their team of lawyers and lobbyists, I'm sure plenty of people paid the mafia for "protection".News Flash: Once approved by the USPTO, patents are considered valid until proven invalid, not invalid until proven valid a 2nd time in a court of law. Jeezus man, that was a fail.[/citation]
No, the point I am alluding to is that B&N may start something that could hurt Google more than Microsoft, if, yes, some dumb ass judge decides the wrong way.
Microsoft currently benefits to the tune of $400 million year of money it never previously had, Google currently benefits to the tune of cornering the mobile OS market and all the advertising revenue that comes with it.
Google has more to lose, it knows it and that's why it is happy to maintain the staus quo and not get involved in the licensing issues between it's Android hardware partners and Microsoft.
 

dalethepcman

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2010
541
0
18,940
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]No, the point I am alluding to is that B&N may start something that could hurt Google more than Microsoft[/citation]

Actually the point you are making is moot and invalid. The ONLY reason HTC and Samsung decided to pay license fee's to Microsoft is because they are still business partners with Microsoft. If Samsung decided to go the lawsuit route against Microsoft how much a discount do you think M$ would give them on their windows operating systems installs?

If a Samsung computer all of a sudden cost $199 more than all of their competitors because Microsoft decided to not renew Samsung's OEM license agreement, that would hurt them a lot more than passing $30 of cost onto the consumer's of their phones.

Barnes and Noble is doing this because they have nothing to loose. The worst case outcome for B&N, is they pays royalties, the best outcome is M$'s patents are invalidated. Sounds like a win win to me. Even if B&N lose horribly, it wont change the landscape for Google or Android at all, as the patents would still be standing just like they currently are.
 

alikum

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
117
0
18,630
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Actually the point you are making is moot and invalid. The ONLY reason HTC and Samsung decided to pay license fee's to Microsoft is because they are still business partners with Microsoft. If Samsung decided to go the lawsuit route against Microsoft how much a discount do you think M$ would give them on their windows operating systems installs? If a Samsung computer all of a sudden cost $199 more than all of their competitors because Microsoft decided to not renew Samsung's OEM license agreement, that would hurt them a lot more than passing $30 of cost onto the consumer's of their phones.Barnes and Noble is doing this because they have nothing to loose. The worst case outcome for B&N, is they pays royalties, the best outcome is M$'s patents are invalidated. Sounds like a win win to me. Even if B&N lose horribly, it wont change the landscape for Google or Android at all, as the patents would still be standing just like they currently are.[/citation]
How sure are you? Your reasoning is that they obliged because they are MSFT's partner in other sectors. What about HTC? Do they build PCs? I'm inclined to believe that MSFT's patents are very much valid.
 

alikum

Distinguished
Nov 28, 2008
117
0
18,630
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]In my opinion, it sounds like BN is fighting abusive M$ practices.Apple will learn it's lesson, too. They are basing their patents on things that have been public domain for years. Samsung presented evidence of that in court by showing that one of Apple's patents had been shown in a movie a long time ago, and sorry, crApple fan, in the US at least, you cannot be granted a patent for something that was shown in a film.[/citation]
Abusive? They don't even patent devices with a rectangular shapes or icons with rounded corners and you call them abusive? Sure, some patents are overly generic / broad, but to think that most Android phone manufacturers agreed to a deal with MSFT makes me believe that these alleged "abusive" patents are valid, and strong.
 
G

Guest

Guest
dalethepcman: +1 to you, sir. You totally nailed it. This MS extortion racket isn't already hurting Google as much as it possibly could. The only other outcomes are:

1. MS wins and B&N concedes a licensing fee.
2. MS wins, and decides to go all the way and shuts Android down. Handset makers then have to sell handsets with their own crappy firmware, but can leave the door open to you installing Android yourself, since it's mostly all GPL software. This creates a cottage industry of hackers who will "mod" your phone into an Android phone.

#2 is extremely unlikely, it's more likely that the patents would be invalidated, otherwise, MS would seek compensation directly from Google.
 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Actually the point you are making is moot and invalid. The ONLY reason HTC and Samsung decided to pay license fee's to Microsoft is because they are still business partners with Microsoft[/citation]
Samsung is a business partner with Apple too, how's that working out?
...
In this business everyone is working with everyone else, the relationship has nothing to do with it.
 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
[citation][nom]dalethepcman[/nom]Barnes and Noble is doing this because they have nothing to loose. The worst case outcome for B&N, is they pays royalties, the best outcome is M$'s patents are invalidated. Sounds like a win win to me[/citation]
I never said B&N have nothing to lose, I said Google.
Up till now no-one has investigated if the so-called Microsoft elements actually exist in the Android OS, or if they have it is internally and not gone by way of a courtroom.
If it goes to a legal investigation and it is proved in public Microsoft would have a legal precedent to force Google to halt all Android production and maybe even a multi-billion dollar damages claim.
So yes, B&N have nothing to lose, but as I originally stated, it could be very bad for Google.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.