Microsoft Adds ViewSonic, Acer to Android Licensees

[Guest]

gone_by_demand: Oh yes, the awesome R&D that went into:

Patent #12343455666:

The use of XML to transmit data between 2 computers.

(and other similarly frivolous and non-patent-worthy M$ patents)


So basically, you're saying that MS should be legally entitled to a monopoly, because it's impossible to write an operating system without infringing on their intellectual property?

Welcome to the world of blind ignorance, fanboy...

 

[PhilFrisbie]

The problem is software is math and should NEVER have been allowed to be patented.

 

[Guest]

Can anybody tell me ANYTHING Microsoft actually invented? Having dominant marketshare is not, in and of itself, patent-worthy. Sure, they have the copyright to basically every technology used in Windows(C#, ASP.NET, NTFS, etc...), but they have roughly zero actual inventions, they've never been the first to do anything. If you take the time to read their patents, it's laughably obvious stuff that only a corrupt Texas judge would consider patent worthy.

 

[Shin-san]

Another piece of software that gets licensed out: FAT/FAT32

 

[verbalizer]

big business.
a dog eat dog world.
it's like big bank takes little bank..

 

[Guest]

Shin-san: Maybe you should check out the wiki page for FAT, here's a snippet of it:


U.S. Patent 5,745,902 - Method and system for accessing a file using file names having different file name formats. Filed July 6, 1992. This covered a means of generating and associating a short, 8.3 filename with long one (for example, "Microsoft.txt" with "MICROS~1.TXT") and a means of enumerating conflicting short filenames (for example, "MICROS~2.TXT" and "MICROS~3.TXT"). It is unclear whether this patent would cover an implementation of FAT without explicit long filename capabilities. Hard links in Unix file systems do not appear to be prior art: deleting a FAT file via its long name will also remove its short name. Renaming a file to a "short" name also updates the long file name for coherency; similarly, renaming a file to a "long" name will allocate a new "short" name. In NTFS, hard links and dual names are separate concepts and each hard link has two names. Finally, at the API level, both names are always provided together when a directory lookup is requested from the system; they do not appear as two separate files and do not have to be "matched" to determine unique files.

U.S. Patent 5,579,517 - Common name space for long and short filenames. Filed for on 1995-04-24. This covers the method of chaining together multiple consecutive 8.3 named directory entries to hold long filenames, with some of the entries specially marked to prevent their confusing older, long filename-unaware FAT implementations.




Yeah, that's some mind blowing stuff there, nobody should be allowed to steal those precious ideas... I mean, FAT32 is soooooooooo advanced, it's not like people would have said f*ck FAT32 and used EXT2/XFS/ZFS/any-other-FS instead had Windows with it's 90%+ marketshare supported it... It's not as if Microsoft bent over the entire industry to force their inferior technology on them, rather than support superior open standards. /sarcasm

 

[balister]

The reason is getting all this money is they hold several patents for software aspects used by Linux. Since Android is a flavor of Linux, it's using some of those patented software. What will be scary is what happens in the Oracle/Google case where Oracle is going after Google for including aspects of Java that Oracle holds patents on.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Viewsonic & Acer,not for me! I've never been into those two OEM manufacturers & never will.

 

[ericburnby]

Once Apple and Oracle get their cut that "free" OS called Android isn't going to be "free" (or cheap) anymore.

But that's nothing. The biggest threat to Android/Google is not MS, Apple or Oracle. It's Andy Rubin himself. Between stealing IP from Apple (when he worked there) and incorporating it into Android to the e-mail where he basically suggests they use Java without a license and defend their decision later (and make enemies along the way) he's making Apple's and Oracle's cases for them.

 

[CPU666d1]

At least acer & viewsonic pay up,they know what the price is of a court battle.

 

[junixophobia]

well at least now I know which products to avoid. I do own a viewsonic monitor before and that will be the last...

That kernel issue is still being contested and I hope kernel.org would remove that IP and write their own if its that easy.

In other sites, it says that motorola and Barnes&nobles is actively fighting this and by 2012, the verdict will be out on one of them... I guess I know why google want to buy them... damn! the freedom of innovation is at stakes :'<

 

[Zingam]

I hate extortionists and that's why I hate Microsoft!

 

[eddieroolz]

Perhaps this explains why Microsoft is taking a laid-back approach in developing for the mobile sector. The more Android becomes popular, the more Microsoft benefits.

 

[DSpider]

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Patents were made to protect not exploit.

Like two other people have said already, this is a COST, and costs are passed on to the consumers + profit. Next time think about why you spent $260 on a tablet instead of $250. Oh, and while you may think $10 is nothing, take another $10 for an Apple patent, another for a Sony patent, another for Oracle and that $250 tablet turns into $290. Cool, huh? Even though you bough an ASUS tablet (for example), you would be feeding 4 other companies too.

They need to write similar, open standards that basically do the same thing - preferably better or very close, so that they won't hold up in court (no proprietary code being used).

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]linux_libre[/nom]gone_by_demand: Oh yes, the awesome R&D that went intoatent #12343455666:The use of XML to transmit data between 2 computers.(and other similarly frivolous and non-patent-worthy M$ patents)So basically, you're saying that MS should be legally entitled to a monopoly, because it's impossible to write an operating system without infringing on their intellectual property?Welcome to the world of blind ignorance, fanboy...[/citation]
Mac OSX seems to work without any Microsoft code, so does BeOS, Unix, Solaris...
Android however is modified Linux containing code that is owned by Microsoft.
They had the option of writing their own code from scratch, they didn't.
And the age and complexity of something you own is irrelevant, if you own it it should be protected from theft or exploitation.
End of.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]CPU666d1[/nom]At least acer & viewsonic pay up,they know what the price is of a court battle.[/citation]
They also know they would lose
Like it or not, everyone knows who owns the rights to this code, even Google otherwise they would have piped up to defend the OEMs.

 

[reggieray]

MS is a patent troll bitch company. Long live Linux

 

[Archean]

back_by_demand : Google didn't made Android, in fact they bought it (http/www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2005/tc20050817_0949_tc024.htm) and then improved it before marketing/giving it away for free. However, Google still makes money from it, as people are generally stuck in the Google's ecosystem since they have to use their services e.g. search, hence the advertising part comes in.

slabbo: It is not MS's fault that Google giving away their OS for free, after incorporating all those infringing patents in to it, which makes anyone who is using this piece of software open to any legal action as long as they are profiting from it. Now the OEMs are in a fix, whereas Google too is making money (although indirectly through their own services) and MS (and others) through such settlements.

 

[terion]

> Android however is modified Linux containing code that is owned by Microsoft

I doubt it. I think it is about some generic idea, which cannot be circumvented (invent square wheel, just to avoid round wheel infringement?) and not any piece of code. Code can be written. Generic idea like multi touch or gallery with scrollable images or tablet form factor can't be replaced by something else and still make sense.