Discussion on:

The Microsoft bully is back

Yeh, most comments I've heard about WP7 say that it is 'good' - but 'isn't being marketed well'!! Just look at MS adverts for Bing as another example of their total lack of marketing prowess...

MS is characterized by a large seal lying on a beach in the sun bullying smaller seals for fish returning from the sea.MS is dying under this CEO from over weight like some government organization.

Samsung are big boys. Just because the writer hasn't seen the patents doesn't mean that Samsung haven't. Why would anyone pay for some idle threat? They clearly know the patents involved, and the fees imply their worth. Nought wrong with that though the price seems extreme. They are big boys'n'gals though, who know their business.

And as things progress they will likely all get money and give away money on this merry-go-round, and the net damage wont be as great as it might seem.

> Why would anyone pay for some idle threat?

Ask the companies that paid licensing to SCO for using Linux-based systems. After years of dragging out those lawsuits, ultimately SCO was found to have nothing They clearly know the patents involved, and the fees imply their worth.

Citation needed. Where is your evidence that Samsung's people "know the patents involved".

Where is the evidence that Samsung's people DON'T know the patents involved. Just because this reporter says that they don't does not make it so.

I just answered GetReal-mac.com's questions and pointed out there's no evidence that Samsung's people "clearly know the patents involved, and the fees imply their worth". I didn't say that Samsung's people necessarily don't know the patents involved. Please learn some reading comprehension skills.

Theres nothing I can see that says Samsung hven't seen the patents. My take is that it's all behind closed doors and the reporter hasn't seen them. In which case, who cares? Loads of folk have non disclosure pacts... what right do we have to see why Samsung are paying? They MUST think its a good deal or they wouldn't pay. Think of it as a game of poker!

ps No point in getting nippy about 'reading skills'... we all read what we want into these things.

> My take is what right do we have to see why Samsung are paying? They MUST think its a good deal or they wouldn't pay. ps No point in getting nippy about 'reading skills'... we all read what we want into these things.

Who's getting "nippy"? I'm just pointing out that kizby is making unwarranted assumptions and (willfully, I think) misreading what others say.

It's one thing to read into what's going on with Samsung and Microsoft from the outside, based on expectations built up by years of consistent behavior from these corporations. It's another to read unwarranted assumptions of stupidity into what others have said.

If your position is anything like objective, you should probably be getting ready to suggest kizby back off next. It was, after all, kizby that changed this from making assumptions about Samsung's and Microsoft's motivations to making assumptions about mine.

Wouldn't the eventual outcome of those lawsuits make Samsung more skeptical of similar threats, not more compliant?

Yes, that outcome should make Samsung more skeptical of such claims -- but that's not my point. The point is that threats are often effective when there is a perception of danger, regardless of whether the threats are based in legally supportable claims. The problem is that engaging in a war of mutually assured destruction in courts of civil law -- probably the best outcome Samsung could expect from challenging Microsoft's threats -- would not be a move calculated to let the corporate officers keep their jobs.

I gave you an upvote for the question, though. It's a good one for me to address.

There are a number of reasons for a company to settle on something like this. Here are just a few examples:

1. The case presented is/was strong so why bother going to court for the same judgement?
Based on the general opinion of the legal department and usually 1 or 2 consultants

2. Preserve the company image
What will going to court do the the image of Samsung, will MS taking Samsung to court damage Samsungs brand and reputation? Will our customers see us as not-trustworthy if we go to court? How will people see us if they think we lose?

3. The cost of going to court is higher than that of the cost of settlement

The reality is that where the patient information wasn't made public (yet again) I would be fairly certain that there would have been disclosure privately. This after all is the basis of the claim and an un-substantiated claim is more often than not dismissed immediately.

My question however is, if MS thinks that Andriod is in fact in violation of their patients then why aren't they taking Google to court? Fear maybe?

Samsung uses the popular mobile OS for their devices but distributing under a license from Google, so how is it Samsung is at fault in the first place? Did Samsung alter the software to put it in potential violation of an existing patient?

"if MS thinks that Andriod is in fact in violation of their patients then why aren't they taking Google to court? Fear maybe? "

The answer to your question is precedent. The US legal system gives great weight to precedent. If MS were able to get courts to decide in their favor when suing handset makers for patent violation regarding Android then they would be more likely to win a larger case against Google.

> The case presented is/was strong so why bother going to court for the same judgement? The reality is that where the patient information wasn't made public (yet again) I would be fairly certain that there would have been disclosure privately. My question however is, if MS thinks that Andriod is in fact in violation of their patients then why aren't they taking Google to court? Fear maybe?

Google doesn't have nearly the patent portfolio that Microsoft has, so it's not really much of a question of mutually assured destruction. I think Microsoft's fear is that Google's lawyers will be good too, and Google has the money to survive that kind of patent challenge -- so it would probably take Microsoft to court and wipe out a bunch of Microsoft patents before Microsoft can make one stick, with the end result that it doesn't do much damage to Google anyway. Then, of course, Google would countersue, not with the "sheer number of patents" approach like a spray of pellets from a shotgun but with a few carefully selected patents that are almost certain to stand up to scrutiny. See, Google's basically run by engineers, who don't tend to think of registering patents unless they come up with something truly novel, which means it has far fewer patents but what patents it has tend to be much more individually valuable. This would do no more damage to Microsoft than Microsoft's shotgun approach would do to Google, but chances are good that Microsoft sees no advantage in going after Google because of it.

So . . . no, probably not fear. Just barely smart enough to realize that there's no advantage to be had in going after Google on patent grounds.

Patents have long since ceased to be used in any way remotely like they were intended to be used when patent laws were instituted in the US. They're nothing but a tool of monopoly power and, in rare cases, a defense against monopolistic business practices.

Make some money out of these dreams.

NOBODY coughs up cash without seeing the evidence at least. And nobody coughs up a whoppong $15 per unit. It's irrelevent what the patents are to you and me... and silly to speculate that they impart on Google. Maybe Samsung dont want others to know in case they get sued by another set of players.... either way; they've seen the threat and have chosen to suppress the detail. Nothing else makes any sense.

> NOBODY coughs up cash without seeing the evidence at least.

A bunch of businesses coughed up money for "UNIX licenses" when SCO started threatening lawsuits for anyone who used Linux-based systems. Several years later, SCO had been destroyed by the costs of dragging out litigation without any evidence to show for it.

Many of these Android handset manufacturers had already manufactured several million of the devices prior to the fees being asked for by Microsoft. Why not pay the fee to operate smoothly while doing further investigation and lowering inventory investment with no fear of backlash. Besides if it is discovered unfounded logterm you can always sue Microsoft back for improper licensing fees... or more likely discounts and credits on Microsoft products in use at yur company.

Doesn't Apple do stuff like that all the time and they are never labeled as a bully, but as an innovator?

This is a good point, I think that Apple chooses it's battles more carefully and discloses more.

Think about the mouse, MS was accused of stealing this from Apple years ago and in Apples pursuit they were seen as an innovator.

Apple however disclosed the extent of the theft whereas MS isn't publicly disclosing what the innovation they are fighting for is.

...was actually developed at Xerox-PARC, so neither Apple nor Microsoft could patent it. It's a classic case of "prior art".

People patent things covered by prior art all the time. Yes, that's theoretically not possible, but -- as any engineer knows -- in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they are not.

it still doesn't make it right. The patents genreally can be uinvalidated, buthte cost to do it is more than accepting it.

I agree with you on this 100%. I was just pointing out the sad facts of the situation.

But Apple owned it and perfected it. Xerox's implementation was not useful until Apple engineers got a hold of it. The only thing useful from Xerox was the idea.

Apple could only have tried to patent the changes they made to the mouse - not the original idea itself. And the problem with that is that in order to patent changes to something, it has to be a non-obvious or non-trivial change. That's how a lot of patents get invalidated in court: they can't demonstrate that it is "novel".

If you can demonstrate how Apple took the concept of the mouse and improved using a "novel" and "non-obvious" improvement, you too can become a patent lawyer.

You assume that Xerox had patented it in the first place. If there were no patents on the GUI and Apple bought the idea wouldn't they have full rights to the idea not just part as you stated?

Good points. The difference is that Apple has legitimate innovations whereas MS merely "acquires" theirs.

What does Apple have to do with this? And, contrary to popular FUD, Apple actually does innovate unlike the other company.

Like the concept of the GUI, or WYSIWYG - also taken from Xerox' PARC?

Or were you referring to the "innovation" behind adapting BSD into a "new" OS?

My favorite Apple innovation is the iPod/iTouch devices, which are less serviceable and play less filetypes than the competition, while tying down the consumer into their own proprietary closed garden system (iTunes).

I fail to see how Apple is any different from any other tech company out there when it comes to re-using someone else's ideas and making them their own, for profit.

Let's not forgot Steve's own words: "We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." (1996)

But they didn't steal the GUI. The tried to buy it. Xerox management wouldn't have it. They thought it was completely useless and therefore gave it away. Jobs had the vision, they didn't. He was right they were wrong.
It wasn't an original idea but the innovation was in the vision that he saw potential. Looks like he was right!

I'm referring to getting the GUI right and setting the standard for how computers should interact with human beings. After all, they were the only ones that bothered writing a book about how a human should interact with a computer (Humain Interface Guidelines).
I'm referring to being the first ones to bravely let go of the floppy disk, etc.
Yes, Steve did use other technology when it made sense but it took vision to see what would work. Xerox didn't have that vision. Bill Gates told IBM to ask somebody else if they wanted to produce the OS for their PCs and if they didn't want it he would take it. Where's the vision???
If you weren't wrapped up in your anti-Apple religion you would realize that control is a good thing when it comes to making things work extremely well with fewer problems and integrating really well with hardware. People get caught up in too much anti-Apple rhetoric that they don't see any good in controlling both the hardware and software to give the best user experience available in the market today.
I do expect a response about how Microsoft is this and that but bottom line is they aren't innovative and don't have vision. Innovation isn't limited to only original ideas. It also encompasses recognizing a good idea and taking advantage (not stealing) it. He did not steal the GUI. He tried to pay for it and Xerox didn't want anything for it.

Samsung is not a 'smaller company', it is a global giant, and much bigger then Microsoft in revenue.

This article starts by stating: 'Microsoft is up to their old tricks of gouging smaller companies, claiming patent infringement.' The only citation of a 'smaller company' is Samsung. Epic fail...

Hope Samsung is putting MS back to where it should be. Clearly MS is wasting more cash on trying to prop up their fast disappearing monopoly instead of developing new innovative products.Clearly MS is announcing to the world it cannot compete in such a competitive environment.

When have they ever invented something. Oh, wait, they invented the object in Ajax that gives web pages client app. like power. That's it!!!

I'm not an xbox fan but everyone has to accept that the 'kinnect system' is a piece of fantastic hardware/software. Games use for the moment but I'm sure we can all see where the technology has tremendous promise.

I'm a PS3 and Wii fan, but this takes us one step closer to the star trek gizmos we all thought were far fetched 30 years ago. No doubt the zealots will be dismayed at the thought of pinch/zoom, page turns etc WITHOUT a touch screen. What of a mini kinnect between your keyboard and monitor for instance? It's all so fascinating; and accept it, it's MS innovation!

Yep, I'll give them that. I'm impressed. Sort of pissed me off that they came up with it but I'm still impressed.
I guess I was sort of thinking about just in the computing industry not the gaming. But, yes, it's still pretty cool.
I read where some college kids have actually come up with an eye tracking system that allows you to move your eyes to where you want the cursor to go and you can blink to click the mouse button.
Good stuff will come of this.
So, we'll give them 2 innovations. Not bad given their track record.

Microsoft didn't invent the kinect, they bought the camera tech from another company. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinect#Technology)
Its the usual Embrace Extend Extinguish, but they've changed it to Embrace, Extend Extort in this case.

I knew there was a lack of innovation still permeating the walls in Redmond. Thanks for the insight my friend!

Look at the market cap of each. MSFT dwarfs SSU.SG in value. No contest!

Perhaps in your parochial little market, but not in global terms. Samsung is one of the Asian supergiant companies that predates Microsoft and has business streams in many diverse industries around the world. Microsoft has a comprehensive portfolio, but it is not nearly as diverse or globally competitive.

Yes, if MS is going to play the patent infringement card, it should have to disclose which patents are affected.

However, if Samsung is dumb enough to pay up without that information, that's their own fault. They're big enough to spit in MS's eye. There are also enough Android-using companies that are plenty large enough to support each other against MS in this arena.

I voted we don't have all the facts.

Samsung is currently being sued by Apple as well for infringement with their devices. And Apple is being sued right back. Are you going to get mad at either one of them for doing the exact same thing?

In case you haven't noticed, Android-related firms are getting sued by a LOT of people for patent infringement. Your ire is misplaced. It rightfully belongs on:

* The current patent system which is fairly nuts
* Google for not checking the patent scene properly

Fact is, a company who *can* play the patent game, but doesn't, is leaving money on the table. Have you ever declined a tax deduction because you thought it was unfair, or drove slowly that the speed limit because you thought it was too high? I bet not. The trick is to create better, more fair rules and laws, not to berate companies for leverage the rules and laws.

J.Ja

I've never consciously declined a tax deduction I knew I could have, but that's mostly because income tax is both unethical and actively harmful to the economy.

I have driven slower than the speed limit because the speed limit was too high. Mostly, I drive faster because it's too low -- the standard approach is to place speed limits ten to twenty miles per hour below safe speeds, encouraging people to speed so that ticket revenues remain high, but I have seen two cases where someone must have miscalculated horribly and ended up with a speed limit about ten miles per hour higher than safe speeds. I tend to ignore speed limits and just drive at a safe, efficient speed, for the most part.

If I had sole control of a company in a position to amass the volume of patents owned by Microsoft, I would use those patents to defend against asinine, spurious patent claims -- and would never use them to destroy innovation the way Microsoft is trying to use them. Then again, I try to be a good person. Steve Ballmer is a sociopath.

... I kick myself later because my analogies were poor.

J.Ja