Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:43 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
In reply to: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android by karim
Parent article: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

To many device makers, Android is a nightmare as far as patent litigation (now 37 Android-related lawsuits) is concerned. Of course, intellectual property issues are only one part of the consideration. Up to a certain point they may just look at a seemingly free and open (in reality, neither free nor fully open) offering as an attractive choice, especially as long as consumers like it. 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, 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.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:57 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (3 responses)

Florian: Care to disclose any conflicts of interest you may have? So far you have not disputed that you are being paid to sow FUD against Android and/or Google.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:59 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

I just answered that question yesterday in the Bionic discussion; the one who asked appreciated the answer; so I fail to see why you bring this up here other than trying to troll me, perhaps.

I have no conflicts of interest to disclose, period.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 21:17 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

Who cares? This sort of attack is getting boring. It is happening more and more here at LWN, by a variety of people. Please be aware that, due to the distributed nature of the attacks, unlike the person you are attacking, it is very hard to filter, and may become unpleasant for others.

If someone is making bogus points because of their affiliations, then the bogus points should speak for themselves, no? Pointing out their supposed affiliations does nothing for those of us who use logic in evaluating comments. Please recognize that this type of attack is itself appealing to fear.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 15:19 UTC (Wed) by michel (subscriber, #10186) [Link]

It matters.

Ask yourself that if you were a medical professional and you go to a conference where another professional in the field talks about a new treatment option which seems to provide great benefits for a disease, with much factual data to support it's efficacy, wouldn't you like to know if that person was paid by the manufacturer of that treatment? It won't change the facts and it all maybe very much above reproach, but having that information will make you wonder if there may not be other facts that are *not* being disclosed.

Mr. Mueller certainly knows a lot more about patents than I do, but so far I've seen just two statements from him about this:
> On my blog and in discussions like I express exclusively my own beliefs, and that's all I have to say about that.
and
>I have no conflicts of interest to disclose, period.
Neither of those (in my opinion) are really a clear statement. I would probably want to know 'does Mr. Mueller receive any compensation from a company that has a substantial patent portfolio'? To me that is important to know because it will shape how I read and interpret his arguments. And not having seen that statement, will make me assume that he has and shape my interpretation accordingly. But that's clearly my choice. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Mueller does not have any obligation to disclose anything.

That does not mean his arguments are invalid, his analysis of the *presented* facts are faulty, or that he's lying.

Having said all that, I do find myself caring less and less about his posts and the ensuing spam fest that seems to follow. But I do like freedom of expression, and I can *choose* to listen, or not.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 23:38 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (1 responses)

>To many device makers, Android is a nightmare as far as patent litigation (now 37 Android-related lawsuits) is concerned.

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 "Its not like Androids 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.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 6:57 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Now can you substantiate that [neither free nor fully open] *without* referring to a certain blog ?

Since these are complex issues, it's more efficient to link to write-ups on them than to go into every detail in a comment here. About "free", you could see Microsoft's statement on the Barnes & Noble suit, which mentioned that many others including Amazon.com and HTC already pay royalties to them and they expect everyone else to pay. Then you look at the 37 Android-related patent lawsuits taking place already (plus there will be many more, I'm sure), and many if not most or even all of those will result in royalty-bearing license deals.

It doesn't matter who previously said that Android isn't free. If it isn't, it isn't. If someone I don't agree with on something else tells me the Earth is round, the answer isn't that it's "flat". It's that he's right, it's round, and I still beg to differ on other issues.

Concerning Android's openness, just look at the Skyhook case, where Google bullied Motorola and Samsung to prevent them from using a competing geotagging solution.

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).

I'm not dissuading anyone. I look at what's going on and analyze it. All it takes is a few patent holders successfully collecting $10 or $20 on each device, and the end user price of a device goes up $100 or more. If Google had a strong patent portfolio, it could solve some of this through cross-licensing, but with 500-odd patents it's not a serious player in that game.

Those are facts that I'm perfectly entitled to analyze and discuss. Just like you're entitled to a different expecation. The assumption that those 37 patent lawsuits are just all going to go away without substantial implications for the competitiveness of Android is, however, very unrealistic.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 14:13 UTC (Wed) by southey (guest, #9466) [Link] (2 responses)

In your responses, you keep ignoring that this suit has zero to do with Android and would occur for any OS such as Palm, Symbian and Blackberry if these got or had gotten sufficient successful. This suit has everything to do with market competition. Just look at who is suing who as probably Apple and Microsoft have some deal not to sue each other yet. These are just scare/fud tactics to bully companies into their products while these companies think that they can get away with it.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 14:19 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

In your responses, you keep ignoring that this suit has zero to do with Android and would occur for any OS such as Palm, Symbian and Blackberry if these got or had gotten sufficient successful

You're just wrong on both counts:

I did point out on my blog (when I published the infographic of the 37 Android lawsuits) that market share is a factor here.
However, my blog post also explains why it's just one factor, and there are Android-specific reasons, particularly Google's weak patent portfolio (the best way to deal with other industry players) and the fact that Google doesn't do inbound licensing (the only option when dealing with non-practicing entities).

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 14:20 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

This sounds pretty reasonable indeed. This likely has more to do with possibility/probability of extracting marginal percentage from other companies' success than with technical reasons. Thinking likely goes something like: we own patents they seem to be using, they're making money, let's ask them to share some of it. Probably makes tons of sense from the shareholder perspective ... despite giving engineers and developers nausea and heart-attacks.