If these numbers are accurate, then yuck!!! My disgust for software patents just went up even further.
More seriously, I have a question for those who know more about this...
1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google?
>1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict?
no alternative implementation would help as it is not about some specific patents, it is more about [litigation] threat that some patents in the vast portfolio can be found that may be in some sense considered violated. Basically it is racket called Android Licensing Program - you pay "protection money" to MS in exchange for it not bothering you.
What interesting here is that Google seems to leave its OEMs to fend for themselves, thus instead of fighting one Google over 2B/yearly pot (the show that first row tickets for would sell like for Superball), MS extorts fifty million here and hundred million there which is much easier and safer.
> What interesting here is that Google seems to
> leave its OEMs to fend for themselves
This might have been a valid criticism a couple of years ago but at the moment I believe Google is defending claims by Microsoft against Motorola claiming that Android device makers don't need third-party patent licenses. So it certainly seems like they're doing their fair share to stand up to MS -- more than any other OEM (it's not like Samsung is some mom and pop shop that couldn't put up a fight).
MS attempts to do everything possible to hide what patents they use for protection racket. Most probably because those patents are garbage and can be otherwise invalidated. Barnes and Noble almost got to that point, but MS quickly bribed them to prevent that from happening. Unfortunately, besides B&N no one had the guts to fight these racketeers.
You are a bit confused. When Microsoft sued Barnes and Noble, the patents they were suing over were disclosed in their public court filings. Over a dozen were identified [1].
So they did disclose them? No doubt under pressure from B&N. If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial. Such things should never be patentable in the first place. Surely invalidating them can be not so easy, but it can be possible. It's one of the reasons why MS attempts to push NDAs as much as possible (we are lucky this was disclosed in those cases). Probably only a minority of their patents are non trivial, and most of these racket attacks are based on these kind of junk patents.
> If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial.
They may or may not be trivial, but I've only known the patent numbers for an hour, and you only knew them for 15 minutes when you posted--and it is not possible to have read them in sufficient detail to make such a judgement in that time.
To find out what a patent actually covers you have to read more than just the title and the abstract. The title and abstract are mostly useful for determining what a patent does not cover rather than determining what it covers.
The title just tells you the broad area the patent is in, and the abstract narrows that down a bit, but both will cover a lot of ground. That's why they are most useful for exclusion, not inclusion.
To find out what the patent actually covers, it is the claims that matter. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, so you must read that to understand the claims.
For instance, a patent might have a title of "Acoustic Repelling of Mosquitoes", which seems really broad, but when you read the specification and claims, it might turn out that the patent only applies when the mosquitoes are a specific species, exactly three sound generators are being used, they are arranged in an equilateral triangle, the temperature is above 95F, and it is daylight.
(Actually, to really tell what is covered, you need to check the file for the patent from the patent office. The examiner and the applicant often go back and forth arguing over whether a claim should be allowed. The arguments and concessions the applicant makes to convince the examiner to allow the claim become limits on the claim).
Hmm, since we're on the topic, and IIRC you have experience in these matters, could you take a quick look at this comment of mine, and let me know if my take on it is inaccurate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6540902
Essentially, I looked at B&N's reply to Microsoft's complaint and it looked really weak to me. I wanted to know if my evaluation is wrong.
As an aside, the whole thread above that comment is pretty similar to this subthread.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. I only went about 98% of the way through law school (I decided I'd rather be a programmer who knew a fair amount of law than a lawyer who knew a lot about programming, and never got around to completing a paper for my last class). I did get a close look at the whole patent suit process later, when a patent that I am a co-inventor on ended up involved in a lawsuit (not of my choice or with my approval), so I got to be deposed a couple times, answer a lot of questions from lawyers, and spend a month living in an annoying hotel in Texas for the trial, and while there got to talk a lot with the lawyers. If an actual lawyer steps in here to answer, take whatever they say over whatever I say.
OK, now that the disclaimer is done (and is longer than my answer, which will probably make people doubt my claim to not be a lawyer!), it looks to me like your take is accurate. Their answer does not give much detail.
Your speculation in the last paragraph, that this is normal for answers to complaints, is also correct I believe. The complaint and answer are not where the parties start to argue the case. The complaint is to tell the court what wrong you think was done to you, and why you think the court has jurisdiction over the defendant and over the subject matter.
The answer is to tell the court which things in the complaint that you concede are true, which you claim are false, and which you cannot answer at this time because you do not have enough information.
Basically, the complaint and answer together let the court know what it is dealing with.
The meaty details start coming in when the suit gets to the stage where the parties are filing pre-trial motions for things like summary judgement on various parts of the complaint, and later when the trial actually gets underway.
Ahh, that is very helpful, thanks. So my evaluation of their answer was premature, but I guess no more premature than those who would take it as an indication that "B&N sure showed Microsoft".
>2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google?
They are all in a sort of standoff, as they cannot sue each other without putting themselves at risk of counter-claims. In addition, there are a number of cross-licensing deals between various large patent-owning entities, as you correctly surmised. Microsoft found a way around these issues, by suing Android implementers (such as Samsung, HTC, etc.), who do not have such large patent portfolios with which to make a "second strike".
A good question, which probably is the reason why Google didn't drop Motorola case against MS (even though it wasn't a good one). But really Google can do more than that.
I wonder if (and how far) Steve Jobs was looking into the future when he did this, and how well, if at all, it has served Apple considering their more impressive innovations since then.
I would think Steve clearly saw the onslaught coming up and probably had an early director part as well - By end 90s MS had become a benefactor to Apple and both were no longer threats to each other. The enemy now was Google and its plans of global domination - I suspect, Steve - the master mind that he was saw the merits in ganging together against a common enemy.
It was common knowledge from early days that Android infringed on several OS and mobile patents. Also note Andy Rubin sold Android predecessor - Danger OS to MS along with all IP. It was just a question of when and how the IP assertion happens.
It isn't clear that Google is one of the companies who pays them. If Microsoft went after Google it seems like Google would have made a stink about it. Microsoft generally goes after companies they expect to be compliant (such as Amazon, who was already paying a patent fee for using Linux on their servers).
It seemed like in the past their method was to say they have patents covering X (in the past X was Linux) and you can license them for some specified amount. I don't think they were specific. If you refused, they would throw out some specifics and take you to court (see TomTom).
I haven't paid much attention to patents in the mobile space so I'm not sure if things have changed.
I'm pretty sure Apple has a cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft, they appear to be more focused on a common enemy these days.
> If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem?
For at least what is problem the main money maker for Microsoft's patent licensing, the patent or patents covering aspects of the FAT32 filesystem, Apple escapes liability because Apple does not use FAT32 in iOS. Android does use it (for removable media).
More seriously, I have a question for those who know more about this...
1. Are these generic, broad "idea" patents and hence there is nothing Google/OEMs can really do here to avoid licensing them? If not, why don't they use an alternative implementation to avoid the conflict?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, how does Apple avoid this problem? Are they also licensing from Microsoft? Or is Apple in some sort of a mutual cross-licensing agreement here to fight the common enemy Google?