Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

This is bullshit.

Are you aware of Google's company portfolio ?

Citation needed. I doubt it's pleasant for those device makers, but without proper citation it's hard to know whether they consider it "a nightmare" or an expected annoyance, business as usual.

>Of course, intellectual property issues are only one part of the consideration.

You mean software patent issues here, right ?

>Up to a certain point they may just look at a seemingly free and open

but "It’s not like Android’s free.", right ? Who was it again that said that ? Looked a little like Gene Simmons, but shinier.

>(in reality, neither free nor fully open)

Now can you substantiate that *without* referring to a certain blog ?

>offering as an attractive choice, especially as long as consumers like it.

and maybe it will remain so, because it is, in fact, very popular. So even after paying all these potential patent taxes, device manufacturers would still come out ahead. So until the dust settles and the true extent of this economic burden of software patents is known, it's no use trying to disuade manufacturers not to use android and implicitly to opt for a "safer" competitor (which is the elephant in the room in your argument).

>But if the 37 Android-related suits that have already been filed have to be settled, plus the many more that will likely be filed this year,

then they might still get the better deal.

>it's hard to see how Android will be economically far less attractive because of the need to dole out $5 to patent holder A, $10 to B, $15 to C, $12 to D, etc.

Not hard at all. Trolls, like parasites, want their host to be popular and widespread. Killing it off by leeching too much is bad business.

Maybe you're right after all, and android is just not "safe". But there are a lot of 'ifs' in your scenario I'm not willing to take at face value.

You know they may pay you, but you'll never have their respect.

Every company is competing with an objective: gain user preference with the best balance among selling price vs quality. No one can sell for less than total cost plus a profit margin.

When an exogenous factor is added to cost, like the M$ tax, legal expenses, lobbying expenses and the like, the compensations are: less quality (cost reduction), less profit, higher selling prices. These measures damage the technological development because funds available and motivation for R&D will be less (why shall I make an effort to invent if I know that my invention will be stolen by a shark?)

Those who collect the proceeds from royalties will not do R%D because is useless. The monopoly position allow to simply don't care. That is the reason why Windows XP had the ridicule life time of around 10 years, was replaced by a worst and mediocre OS (Vista) and at the end Windows 7 was an improvement only because someone felt some fear when both Apple and Linux showed capable of advancing in that core market.

Android / Chrome / linux / open source, have a huge potential to threaten the Microsoft's core and peripheral business. They don't need to compete doing better. Its more cost effective for them to spread FUD by litigating. Money is an asset and they have lots of it. The competitors do not. Then they use it to compete.

The consumers will pay again. More for worst, at each gadget purchase.