Microsoft Gets Royalties from 55% of the Android Ecosystem

[ginghus_khan2000]

This is very bad reporting. What part of Android does anybody need to licence?

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]SmileyTPB1[/nom]Makes you wonder why MS is wasting so much time and money on Windows Phone when they could just me making money off of Android instead.[/citation]

While they are getting royalties on 55% of the ecosystem, I doubt it's much of the total profits or nearly as much as they could be getting from their own system.

 

[eddieroolz]

Let's hope Microsoft will get a 100% compliance rate soon. Their patents should be protected.

 

[cyberkuberiah]

nice potent passive patent income for MS

 

[hoofhearted]

Just think about this next time you pay for that Android phone. Some of that money is going to pay Microsoft and they did nothing to make that a better product for you.

So even if you are choosing a competing product, you are still funding/paying Microsoft. No wonder Ballmer is such a clown, because he can be.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]Just think about this next time you pay for that Android phone. Some of that money is going to pay Microsoft and they did nothing to make that a better product for you.So even if you are choosing a competing product, you are still funding/paying Microsoft. No wonder Ballmer is such a clown, because he can be.[/citation]

I'm sure a few of those patents were inventions of theirs.

 

[junixophobia]

MS have not proven that they really own the contested patent. These companies just chicken out of court cost.

I hope there will be a company who will stand up to this as it will get the ball rolling the other side... Miss the years when M$ loss a lot of patent fight against linux...

 

[dameon51]

[citation][nom]reggieray[/nom]Billy boy ripped off DOS and copied windows from Apple and Atari.[/citation]
They bought DOS and legally resold it, and, in the end, ended up paying its creation vast sums of $ anyways.

 

[Zingam]

I think MS licensees Windows Phone OS for a sum of 15-20 USD. And they "license" patents to Android manufacturers for about the same amount. It's obvious extortion and nothing else. I bet they are trying to make them move to Windows Phone OS.

 

[de5_Roy]

i don't understand. why is microsoft getting paid for google's android? i suspect some kind of uber-lawyering at work here.

 

[Blessedman]

I think MS owns the patent for the actual file system in use. I know they have said that they own a few patents that they allow linux to use FOC. I was pretty sure the file system was one of them and that is probably the easiest to prove and get money from. I could be wrong though... lol troll!

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]de5_roy[/nom]i don't understand. why is microsoft getting paid for google's android? i suspect some kind of uber-lawyering at work here.[/citation]

From a DT piece I was reading:
"Microsoft sits in second place with over 2,300 patents that seemingly apply to Android."

 

[belardo]

man, a lot of people don't know the computer history from the 80s... oh yeah, most of YOU guys were NOT THERE! My first computer in 1983 with the Commodore VIC20. 1mhz, 3.5k of RAM, 8 colors... no floppy drive, but cassette (same as audio tapes).

MS bought QDOS, which itself was nothing more than a re-engineered version of CP/M. This was to get the contract deal from IBM - who was/is in the Mainframe business and wanted to sell PC computers to their customers... they didn't care what it was. Due to WEAK contracts with MS... MS was able to sell MS-DOS to anyone - which created the CLONE Market for which every PC company NOT IBM is thankful for.

MS-DOS was always a sub-standard crappy OS. Especially by the mid 80s and beyond and it would take MS 10 more years to come out with a semi-modern OS known as WIndows95. Things like LOOOONG file names were on Mac and Amigas for a long long time.

[citation][nom]reggieray[/nom]Billy boy ripped off DOS and copied windows from Apple and Atari.[/citation]

Gates bought "DOS" for $25,000 and licensed it out to IBM. Nothing was ripped off. Apple didn't invent the GUI... in fact, even before the macintosh ever came out - there were already several GUI based computer system - but these were about $20,000~100,000. Windows 1.0~3.x were GUI Shells, not an OS - there wasn't much like Mac on Windows... other than a mouse/pointer which Apple didn't invent.

Nobody copied ATARI ST. Its the opposite. The Amiga company was running out of money and Atari made a bid for that technology with a loan. (Amiga was designed by the same designer who made the Atari 600/800 8bit computers - Jay Miner, who I have actually talked to once, thanked him). But Commodore gave them a better deal. The CEO of Atari used to work for Commodore. They knew the basics of the Amiga. The threw together the Atari ST with an 8mhz 68000 (same as Amiga and Mac) the GEM/TOS "OS" was pretty much MS-DOS with a Macintosh look. Apple made Atari degrade the interface... and GEM/TOS had all the limitations of MS-DOS, but with a GUI.... 8.3 file names, no multi-tasking.

In those days... people DID solder RAM chips on top of one another to add memory.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]jakes69[/nom]just out of curiosity, how come google have no problem paying MS but are in load of trouble with Apple?Maybe that is what ticked off Jobs.[/citation]
Google aren't paying MS, Google gives the OS away for free so can't be hit with a suit for benefiting from a sale.
The handset manufacturers however do make a commercial sale so it is them who are asked to pay the licensing to MS.
Foxconn will never agree to pay MS as long as they are connected to Apple.
Everyone else knows that MS have ownership of patents so pay up because to not do so would be bad news in the long run, if it ever went to court and MS forced a multi-billion dollar payout with licensing fees on the top.
Much better to simply pay up and carry on selling handsets.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]They seem to be reasonable enough to come to agreements that both sides agree with. I don't see anything wrong with that. If they didn't come to agreements, they'd likely leave themselves open to be attacked as well. They seem to be playing it smart in my opinion.[/citation]

Yeah, what's wrong with abusing abomination called US patent system and patenting "innovative" stuff like "select text", to then have mafia like talks of paying royalties or facing idiotic trials in court.

/facepalm

 

[hoof_hearted]

I am going to go through the entire periodic table and patent the use of every element to make ... something.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Yeah, what's wrong with abusing abomination called US patent system and patenting "innovative" stuff like "select text", to then have mafia like talks of paying royalties or facing idiotic trials in court./facepalm[/citation]

I'm not an expert on the patent system and I'm not sure this is what they wanted from it, but making arrangements and royalties for patent use is a lot closer to what they'd like to see than suing everyone and blocking devices from being sold.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]I'm not an expert on the patent system and I'm not sure this is what they wanted from it, but making arrangements and royalties for patent use is a lot closer to what they'd like to see than suing everyone and blocking devices from being sold.[/citation]
Allowing the tech to proliferate rather than litigation and blocking is a lot better for the consumer don't you think? Apple could learn a lesson here.

 

[husker]

[citation][nom]bystander[/nom]They have no troubles because MS doesn't desire to run Google out of business. Apple is unwilling to settle. Apple does not want to settle. Apple or Jobs at least, want to run Google into the ground.[/citation]
I assume you mean wanted, since Jobs is dead now. I can believe that it was Jobs that drove most of the litigation, because it seems like he refused to compromise on a lot of things. This is probably why Apple products are so popular, because he kept sending products back to engineering until they were perfect. On the other hand, this trait could have also made it impossible to work out business arrangements with him.

 

[bystander]

[citation][nom]husker[/nom]I assume you mean wanted, since Jobs is dead now. I can believe that it was Jobs that drove most of the litigation, because it seems like he refused to compromise on a lot of things. This is probably why Apple products are so popular, because he kept sending products back to engineering until they were perfect. On the other hand, this trait could have also made it impossible to work out business arrangements with him.[/citation]

I wasn't sure if I should have used wanted or want, because Apple is still around and likely following the path he laid out. Let's hope his successor changes some of his opinion.