HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
More patent lawsuits! This time it is Microsoft doing the suing and it is Foxconn and Barnes & Noble on the receiving end. Hey, doesn't Foxconn make stuff for Microsoft too? That must be awkward. 
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Microsoft Says Android E-Reader Violates Patents
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
DogsofJune
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 4,712
I did that once.
Monkey34
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2003
- Messages
- 5,140
Did what? Make some sense boy.
Hop-Scotch
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 954
ol1bit
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,246
Microsfot on the way down. Have to sue smaller companies to make a living for BS stuff.
Can anyone still trust Microsoft this days? I'm still struggling to believe they allowed Kinect hacks to continue (and turn Kinect into a gold mine)!
They have almost no business sense anymore, can't compete on their merits so they sue to scare small competitors cause they have no balls to threat Google.
The message is simple: Can you trust a bully?
They have almost no business sense anymore, can't compete on their merits so they sue to scare small competitors cause they have no balls to threat Google.
The message is simple: Can you trust a bully?
Gorankar
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,114
ZOMG!!! Micro$haft is teh 3v1l$!!
You guys are funny.
IP companies sue and are sued almost daily, it's a fact of business. A hard rule in copyright and patent law is that you have to defend the IP. You MUST defend the IP, or you lose the ability to defend it later. If some one appears to be infringing, you make sure they are, then you say something to see if they will stop, then you try to work out a deal if they will not, and then sue if the deal does not work out. MS is not really know for patent trolling.
You guys are funny.
IP companies sue and are sued almost daily, it's a fact of business. A hard rule in copyright and patent law is that you have to defend the IP. You MUST defend the IP, or you lose the ability to defend it later. If some one appears to be infringing, you make sure they are, then you say something to see if they will stop, then you try to work out a deal if they will not, and then sue if the deal does not work out. MS is not really know for patent trolling.
So it's wrong for a company to protect it's patents?
If it was the other way around and it was MS getting sued for the same shit then i guess that would be Ok right?
Those companies had more than a year to come to an agreement with MS on licensing but failed, so what do you expect MS to do.
My understanding is that MS has a licensing program and other companies, like HTC, are paying a fee. So why not B&N?
The problem is, though, is that patents are just out of control. They are patenting just about anything, even if they never develop product or even if it is a derivative thing. So this is a double edge sword.
The problem is, though, is that patents are just out of control. They are patenting just about anything, even if they never develop product or even if it is a derivative thing. So this is a double edge sword.
Hate to be a troll feeder, but for the record, no one but yourself has brought that level of immature troll speak into this thread, and neither patent nor copyright law works like that.ZOMG!!! Micro$haft is teh 3v1l$!!
You guys are funny.
IP companies sue and are sued almost daily, it's a fact of business. A hard rule in copyright and patent law is that you have to defend the IP. You MUST defend the IP, or you lose the ability to defend it later. If some one appears to be infringing, you make sure they are, then you say something to see if they will stop, then you try to work out a deal if they will not, and then sue if the deal does not work out. MS is not really know for patent trolling.
Just to make clear my view about patents: 99% of them should not be patentable at all.
Explaining: patents are a compromise about evolving the science and rewarding the inventor for sharing it's creation blueprints. The society gives a person (an individual or a corporation) a private monopoly in exchange for the exceptional value of an invention in regard to the advance of the science or better production methods, as long as the inventor reveals it's secrets in a way that someone versed on the field can reproduce the invention. It has to be something really, really special to be rewarded with a monopoly, not "1-click" patents that does nothing to evolve science. Anything short of economically viable cold fusion or a battery that holds a huge lot of electricity for a huge amount of time and is made of sand should not be granted a patent. Software patents are not even on the list of anything close to be patentable. If you can't recreate it from the description of the patent, than it can't be patented.
Can we all remember that monopoly is the opposite of free market? We all brag to the four winds that free market is so important but in the deep we all want to crush the competition and have the market to us only. Again: patent = monopoly, monopoly != free market. Patent is the opposite of innovation. You cannot innovate when a technology is protected. That's why a patent has to have a so high requisite of being trully awesome to be granted, you have to weight the general benefit to the society in exchange for a temporary monopoly as a reward for the full disclosure of the technology behind the invention that would not benefit all society if secret.
.
When you hear someone or some company so interested in patents, it's cause they want a legal excuse for not competing. If they are the inventors of something, they are the first on the market and have a natural advantage over the competition. A legal barrier is for the weak, ones that cannot compete in a free market. They always claim the objective of a patent is to protect innovation and free market. LIE!!! Patents and free market are as mixable as water and oil. They want exclusitvity cause they cannot compete! Either we assume that it's not a free market or we stop lieing about it.
And just because MS is in the other end of suit it does not make it right. Patent trolls are the lowest lifes ever on the earth. Companies suing the competition cause they can't compete are not much better. The innovation has stalled in USA and in every other pro-"patent anything under the sun". Can't you see it? Suing can't be a business, only lawyers can be happy with it.
Flavio
Brazil
P.S.: Patent system was developed to protect the artisan masters from their apprentices cause all what was need to steal the technologies and methods of the masters was to learn the art from them. No master would ever teach an apprentice anymore (except maybe family members) with fear of losing the only differencial from other artisans. So the master would be protected and could advance the field teaching his technologies without fear of losing them.
P.S.2: There is no such thing as IP (Intelectual Property). There is no single law (yet) that describes such aborrent thing. There is patent and copyright, nothing else. It should be patent to physical things and copyright for abstract things.
Explaining: patents are a compromise about evolving the science and rewarding the inventor for sharing it's creation blueprints. The society gives a person (an individual or a corporation) a private monopoly in exchange for the exceptional value of an invention in regard to the advance of the science or better production methods, as long as the inventor reveals it's secrets in a way that someone versed on the field can reproduce the invention. It has to be something really, really special to be rewarded with a monopoly, not "1-click" patents that does nothing to evolve science. Anything short of economically viable cold fusion or a battery that holds a huge lot of electricity for a huge amount of time and is made of sand should not be granted a patent. Software patents are not even on the list of anything close to be patentable. If you can't recreate it from the description of the patent, than it can't be patented.
Can we all remember that monopoly is the opposite of free market? We all brag to the four winds that free market is so important but in the deep we all want to crush the competition and have the market to us only. Again: patent = monopoly, monopoly != free market. Patent is the opposite of innovation. You cannot innovate when a technology is protected. That's why a patent has to have a so high requisite of being trully awesome to be granted, you have to weight the general benefit to the society in exchange for a temporary monopoly as a reward for the full disclosure of the technology behind the invention that would not benefit all society if secret.
.
When you hear someone or some company so interested in patents, it's cause they want a legal excuse for not competing. If they are the inventors of something, they are the first on the market and have a natural advantage over the competition. A legal barrier is for the weak, ones that cannot compete in a free market. They always claim the objective of a patent is to protect innovation and free market. LIE!!! Patents and free market are as mixable as water and oil. They want exclusitvity cause they cannot compete! Either we assume that it's not a free market or we stop lieing about it.
And just because MS is in the other end of suit it does not make it right. Patent trolls are the lowest lifes ever on the earth. Companies suing the competition cause they can't compete are not much better. The innovation has stalled in USA and in every other pro-"patent anything under the sun". Can't you see it? Suing can't be a business, only lawyers can be happy with it.
Flavio
Brazil
P.S.: Patent system was developed to protect the artisan masters from their apprentices cause all what was need to steal the technologies and methods of the masters was to learn the art from them. No master would ever teach an apprentice anymore (except maybe family members) with fear of losing the only differencial from other artisans. So the master would be protected and could advance the field teaching his technologies without fear of losing them.
P.S.2: There is no such thing as IP (Intelectual Property). There is no single law (yet) that describes such aborrent thing. There is patent and copyright, nothing else. It should be patent to physical things and copyright for abstract things.
Team Obi Juan
Your Local Postmaster
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2005
- Messages
- 23,276
B&N already doesn't have great financials, hopefully this doesn't ruin them. The Nook Color is a badass little device.
Dr. Righteous
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 3,163
Patent law has gotten totally out of control.
It use to be to patent something you had to submit a working prototype and prove it; no matter how ridiculous; that it did work and was a idea that was not stolen or borrowed for someone else.
Now companies are allowed to patent things that are merely nothing more than concepts.
This has spawned an enter industry of patent troll companies that buy up worthless patents (patents products or programming techniques that NEVER made it into a commercial product) and sit on them. When some company produces a product that is similar in any way; the patent troll sues. This is essential nothing but a legal shake down. They troll has no personal interest in the patent; they didn't invent or spend a dime on development; they just bought the patent for the purpose of suing someone IF they try to bring a similar product to market.
This is an area that is in need of DEEP REFORM. It is holding back innovation.
It use to be to patent something you had to submit a working prototype and prove it; no matter how ridiculous; that it did work and was a idea that was not stolen or borrowed for someone else.
Now companies are allowed to patent things that are merely nothing more than concepts.
This has spawned an enter industry of patent troll companies that buy up worthless patents (patents products or programming techniques that NEVER made it into a commercial product) and sit on them. When some company produces a product that is similar in any way; the patent troll sues. This is essential nothing but a legal shake down. They troll has no personal interest in the patent; they didn't invent or spend a dime on development; they just bought the patent for the purpose of suing someone IF they try to bring a similar product to market.
This is an area that is in need of DEEP REFORM. It is holding back innovation.
While I do agree with some of what you all are saying but the way it is now MS is doing the exact same thing that people have been doing and have done to them. So until something is changed with patent laws I see nothing wrong with a company protecting what is theirs.
If those other companies like B&N didn't want to have to go to court then they should have licensed it when MS was in talks with them for over more than a year now. They chose their own fate by not wanting to pay up for something that wasn't theirs to use without permission.
Also as someone else has stated, MS is not really know for patent trolling.
Either way i do agree that the system need a reform but until that happens companies like MS have every right to get paid for what is theirs, regardless if we like it or not.
If those other companies like B&N didn't want to have to go to court then they should have licensed it when MS was in talks with them for over more than a year now. They chose their own fate by not wanting to pay up for something that wasn't theirs to use without permission.
Also as someone else has stated, MS is not really know for patent trolling.
Either way i do agree that the system need a reform but until that happens companies like MS have every right to get paid for what is theirs, regardless if we like it or not.
Now you understand why they want to go after B&N: cowardly making a statement to the market, saying "I'll drag you to hell without mercy". And that's innovation? That's free market?
@03grandam
Sorry to not agree with you. MS had all the opportunities to lobby and make a lot of pressure to fix patent system. They don't want it, at least not now. It's a weapon to destroy opposing forces. When (and if) they can destroy Linux, Android and whatever is on their way, they'll easily buy a patent reform. Until them, paying some litigation cost is considered cost of business.
And why would someone license MS "IP" on Linux? They simply have nothing to do with it, their patents are bogus but it would cost B&N gazillions to invalidate them. That's why they go after the ones that have no financial capacity to fight back. Why no going after Google? Cause they would fight to death to invalidate these patents and probably win. Double cost to MS: lose the case and the patents (maybe even some attorney fees)..
The common denominator in all recent patent cases is that patents are used as a weapon to block innovation from competition, not to protect some hard work from being stolen. Software Patents are like patenting an idea, which was (and should still be) forbidden. I think we would probably be better without patents at all, as a meaning to not risk some clever lawyer finding a loophole on the laws, even if some inventions may be worth the patent protection. But the risk is greater than the benefits, so it's really a meausre of how broken is the system.
Flavio
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Google needs to step the hell up and defend these companies. Not doing so can really hurt android in the long run. Last thing google should want is companies afraid of using android.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
Yes, they are pretty vague patents.
MS has spent the last year trying to bully them into paying licensing fees and are now going to court.
The entire US patent system needs overhauled this shits ridiculous.
Not just the patent system, the entire rights system in general. Patents, trademarks, copyrights, the works. It all needs to be completely rewritten.
They (Microsoft) are actually taking a case (Microsoft v. i4i) to the Supreme Court in an effort to make it EASIER to invalidate patents (particularly, in this case, software patents). And they are receiving the support of many of those you claim they are trying to "destroy".
I hate to burst your bubble but it don't matter what platform you use if you want to use someone else's "IP" you still need to get permission. I still stand by what I said, they had over a year to make a deal with MS and didn't do it so...
Also why shouldn't they have to pay licensing fees, HTC has been paying it so why shouldn't B&N?
But I forget how easy it is to throw all this on MS, they arent the only big company that could "lobby and make a lot of pressure to fix patent system" and yet you throw it on them to push for change. Hell MS, Google and Apple could all be doing it and yet you single out MS, such a surprise there, lol.
black_b[ ]x
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2002
- Messages
- 1,753
It is under reform, the senate is working on it now. The proposed changes include some good ideas like being able to cite new references after a patent has issued (or something to that effect).
Submitting a working prototype would not be feasible for complex systems, either mechanical devices (like a tractor) or telecommunication devices (like lots of servers or electronics that work together). Plus, who is going to look at it? what if the invention can't be readily seen with the naked eye? Anyway, there are requirements that the invention work, that it was invented by the person filing for the patent, and that no inventor is left off. If those things are wrong, you can invalidate the patent even after it has issued.
@03grandam
So by your logic, if someone is demanding you pay, you pay?
OK. Someone will knock at your door a say to have a patent on "typing on keyboard", pay US$ 10000 for each keyaboard you own, no questions allowed. Will you pay? Let me anticipate your answer: NO. Your argument will be "it's something obvious" or "has prior art" or whatever argument you raise. But by your own logic you HAVE to pay, the person is demanding so you must be wrong and pay. Please sign the check now! Tomorrow is too late, you'll be sued out of existence. Your neighboor will pay, so you'll pay too! He has a license for the bogus patent which would be tossed out easily but he can't afford the cost of being sued, so he paid.
(see the extorsion business that patents became?)
B&N should not pay anything, the patents are uterly invalid, does not meet new requirements of patentability and has more prior art against it than valid arguments (if any). It's mafia style of business: pay to us so we do not set fire on your store. and you sincerely finds it NORMAL? God bless I live on Brazil, not USA. Your country will stagnate completely in a few years and you'll blame anything but your "IP" laws. I can't even say good luck, I really think USA will deserve whatever this stupidity will lead to, at least as an example of what NOT to do. Perhaps change will happen when all your products get blocked by their competitors and vice-versa. Government will start to notice lower and lower income from taxes (if you can't sell, will not pay taxes) and realize, very late, that it became a mess. Think I'm exagerating? Look at this http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/10/08/whos-suing-whom-in-mobile-infographic/ and see what happens on mobile sector. Try to develop a mobile phone in USA to see what happens (see Apple on the graphic). If it's NORMAL, than please keep you law madness to yourselves and stop trying to push this poison to the rest of the world via ACTA.
Flavio
So by your logic, if someone is demanding you pay, you pay?
OK. Someone will knock at your door a say to have a patent on "typing on keyboard", pay US$ 10000 for each keyaboard you own, no questions allowed. Will you pay? Let me anticipate your answer: NO. Your argument will be "it's something obvious" or "has prior art" or whatever argument you raise. But by your own logic you HAVE to pay, the person is demanding so you must be wrong and pay. Please sign the check now! Tomorrow is too late, you'll be sued out of existence. Your neighboor will pay, so you'll pay too! He has a license for the bogus patent which would be tossed out easily but he can't afford the cost of being sued, so he paid.
(see the extorsion business that patents became?)
B&N should not pay anything, the patents are uterly invalid, does not meet new requirements of patentability and has more prior art against it than valid arguments (if any). It's mafia style of business: pay to us so we do not set fire on your store. and you sincerely finds it NORMAL? God bless I live on Brazil, not USA. Your country will stagnate completely in a few years and you'll blame anything but your "IP" laws. I can't even say good luck, I really think USA will deserve whatever this stupidity will lead to, at least as an example of what NOT to do. Perhaps change will happen when all your products get blocked by their competitors and vice-versa. Government will start to notice lower and lower income from taxes (if you can't sell, will not pay taxes) and realize, very late, that it became a mess. Think I'm exagerating? Look at this http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2010/10/08/whos-suing-whom-in-mobile-infographic/ and see what happens on mobile sector. Try to develop a mobile phone in USA to see what happens (see Apple on the graphic). If it's NORMAL, than please keep you law madness to yourselves and stop trying to push this poison to the rest of the world via ACTA.
Flavio
Tell ya what. Why don't we just wait and see what the courts have to say about it. Cause honestly once you start talking shit about my country then I have nothing more to discuss with you, good day sir.
First, I was no attacking USA people, I was saying you are allowing it to flow without understanding the full picture. looak at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110321172008657 and see the vast majority of comments are from americans, with the same or even bitter comments than I made.
I stand by my words in regard to be wrong and mafia style of business. It also means USA are recognizing they can't compete with China, Korea, Japan etc on the merits of the advance of technology and better products and are searching for other revenues based on someone else work. If you keep the laws as they are, science in USA will decay until rot and you will all lose a lot in the process. Not that it directly matters to me but this will force you to make the world play by your rules, instead of fixing your system. As of today, making science on USA is risking get bankrupt very fast or lose your invention to the bullies (big companies or patent trolls). Leeching is repulsive.
That matters cause ACTA is being negotiated (better saying, thrown down the rest of the world throats) in complete secrecy and they will FORCE oher countries to obey this crazy laws that only benefit you. Thanks, but we don't need it.
Courts will play by the laws and the laws are wrong. In the specific case of patents, courts have extrapolated law to allow software patents, which was a huge, huge mistake. If MS is so confident on their patents, why not go after the big players? Google would love to invalidate this patents based on the new Bilski standard, even if it would not fix the problem cause there are loads of other obvious patents (but still valid until invalidated in a court) that can be used to halt work from competitors. Google will probably step in (http://www.itbusiness.ca/IT/client/en/CDN/News.asp?id=61784) but there is no easy solution to the problem until all software patents are forbidden. MS is trying to scare anyone using Android so they can say "look, do not use android, you'll be subject to a very costly litigation from me; use WP7 and it's all good". If WP7 is so good, why manufacturers are fleeing from it? Maybe they don't trust MS? Maybe it's not a so wonderful product at all?
In the end, it all shows MS is scared to hell about Linux and Android cause they can't buy them, so they try to kill competition. And they are even more scared about Google. They should be investing in making better products, not better traps. People are starting to notice their tatics, their lack of advance. Kinectic is the proof they can innovate when they want. Do better on other areas and your extended reach on a lot of areas can be leveraged to help MS, not to crush competiton because you can't compete.
Don't get it personal, even if I stand on my words about USA laws being unbalanced and favoring the big players, I wish you can elect better people that restore the balance and foster innovation. I would be very sad if a cold fusion innovation that uses some sound frequency (yes, it was on a film) and could benefit all world gets crushed because some greed one patented "playing a sound". And if the world gets a more balanced field, without giving too much power to corporations, we all get a better world.
To prove MS is so "honest" about free market and fair play, look at this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825. If that does not scare you, I can say it scares ME a lot. If you can't compete, buy some laws to protect you, that seems some big players mantra in USA. MS is not alone, look at MPAA, RIAA and so on. They keep trying to kill innovation. If thery could choose, MP3 would be banned to the limbo at first appearance. They even got to sue their customers in desperation to keep the same old business unchanged. They don't want innovation, they don't want anything different. They could not win normally, so they started buying laws. DMCA, for example.
Let's stop it at this point, I know it's hard to hear someone saying bad things about your country, even of true. I do not intend to offend but to alert. Short term cash flow in exchange from killing your entire science progress does not seem a good trade to me. When other countries start to feel your weakness, be prepared to fall down. If all your patents start to come from China, be sure they will coordinate there so no internal conflict will be apparent on the exterior (in China, a chinese trying to advance over other chinese business unfairly is case for death of the ofender, no kidding) so no space for lawyers will exist. Everyone loses in the medium/long term, except China. Paying license to them for everything new seems the future if nothing changes fast. Think about it.
Flavio
P.S.: Last post on this thread.
I stand by my words in regard to be wrong and mafia style of business. It also means USA are recognizing they can't compete with China, Korea, Japan etc on the merits of the advance of technology and better products and are searching for other revenues based on someone else work. If you keep the laws as they are, science in USA will decay until rot and you will all lose a lot in the process. Not that it directly matters to me but this will force you to make the world play by your rules, instead of fixing your system. As of today, making science on USA is risking get bankrupt very fast or lose your invention to the bullies (big companies or patent trolls). Leeching is repulsive.
That matters cause ACTA is being negotiated (better saying, thrown down the rest of the world throats) in complete secrecy and they will FORCE oher countries to obey this crazy laws that only benefit you. Thanks, but we don't need it.
Courts will play by the laws and the laws are wrong. In the specific case of patents, courts have extrapolated law to allow software patents, which was a huge, huge mistake. If MS is so confident on their patents, why not go after the big players? Google would love to invalidate this patents based on the new Bilski standard, even if it would not fix the problem cause there are loads of other obvious patents (but still valid until invalidated in a court) that can be used to halt work from competitors. Google will probably step in (http://www.itbusiness.ca/IT/client/en/CDN/News.asp?id=61784) but there is no easy solution to the problem until all software patents are forbidden. MS is trying to scare anyone using Android so they can say "look, do not use android, you'll be subject to a very costly litigation from me; use WP7 and it's all good". If WP7 is so good, why manufacturers are fleeing from it? Maybe they don't trust MS? Maybe it's not a so wonderful product at all?
In the end, it all shows MS is scared to hell about Linux and Android cause they can't buy them, so they try to kill competition. And they are even more scared about Google. They should be investing in making better products, not better traps. People are starting to notice their tatics, their lack of advance. Kinectic is the proof they can innovate when they want. Do better on other areas and your extended reach on a lot of areas can be leveraged to help MS, not to crush competiton because you can't compete.
Don't get it personal, even if I stand on my words about USA laws being unbalanced and favoring the big players, I wish you can elect better people that restore the balance and foster innovation. I would be very sad if a cold fusion innovation that uses some sound frequency (yes, it was on a film) and could benefit all world gets crushed because some greed one patented "playing a sound". And if the world gets a more balanced field, without giving too much power to corporations, we all get a better world.
To prove MS is so "honest" about free market and fair play, look at this: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825. If that does not scare you, I can say it scares ME a lot. If you can't compete, buy some laws to protect you, that seems some big players mantra in USA. MS is not alone, look at MPAA, RIAA and so on. They keep trying to kill innovation. If thery could choose, MP3 would be banned to the limbo at first appearance. They even got to sue their customers in desperation to keep the same old business unchanged. They don't want innovation, they don't want anything different. They could not win normally, so they started buying laws. DMCA, for example.
Let's stop it at this point, I know it's hard to hear someone saying bad things about your country, even of true. I do not intend to offend but to alert. Short term cash flow in exchange from killing your entire science progress does not seem a good trade to me. When other countries start to feel your weakness, be prepared to fall down. If all your patents start to come from China, be sure they will coordinate there so no internal conflict will be apparent on the exterior (in China, a chinese trying to advance over other chinese business unfairly is case for death of the ofender, no kidding) so no space for lawyers will exist. Everyone loses in the medium/long term, except China. Paying license to them for everything new seems the future if nothing changes fast. Think about it.
Flavio
P.S.: Last post on this thread.