- Status
- Jul 24, 2006
- 23,077
- 349
- 57,490
[citation][nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]Why Google expects to be able to use MS technology without paying for it is beyond my comprehension.[/citation]
They shouldn't have to. APIs and protocols should be open for everyone to use. Patenting them inhibits technological advancement. But this is how Microsoft's business model has always worked. Vendor lock-in is at the heart of their operation. Openness is bad for their aging business model. Microsoft has most corporations by the neck because they already use Exchange and migrating to something else is simply not practical. Since Microsoft software is designed to work properly only with Microsoft software (much like Apple), you are stuck with it and better be ready to pay for upgrades when Steve Ballmer decides that he needs another executive bonus.
They shouldn't have to. APIs and protocols should be open for everyone to use. Patenting them inhibits technological advancement. But this is how Microsoft's business model has always worked. Vendor lock-in is at the heart of their operation. Openness is bad for their aging business model. Microsoft has most corporations by the neck because they already use Exchange and migrating to something else is simply not practical. Since Microsoft software is designed to work properly only with Microsoft software (much like Apple), you are stuck with it and better be ready to pay for upgrades when Steve Ballmer decides that he needs another executive bonus.
[citation][nom]djrichard[/nom]$10 to $15 seems high for licensing for the likes of Active Sync.[/citation]
$10 to $15 is an interesting, and telling, fee since that comes out at about the same sum as the Windows Phone 7 licensing fee...
...dun, dun, DUN!
$10 to $15 is an interesting, and telling, fee since that comes out at about the same sum as the Windows Phone 7 licensing fee...
...dun, dun, DUN!
alyoshka
Splendid
- Oct 2, 2009
- 6,166
- 9
- 27,915
Does anyone own a patent on petrol.... 
cos if not.... I'm applying for it.... , you use it, smell it, buy it, burn it, drink it and if you don't your product is going to in some way or the other.....
You've gotta pay me for it.....
LMAO @ Micro-Air_loft
cos if not.... I'm applying for it.... , you use it, smell it, buy it, burn it, drink it and if you don't your product is going to in some way or the other.....You've gotta pay me for it.....
LMAO @ Micro-Air_loft
deweycd
Distinguished
- Sep 13, 2005
- 846
- 0
- 19,010
Microsoft has been very generous with people using it's patents. It tends not to charge for a patent infringement unless the company is reaping in huge wads of cash at the cost of Microsoft's business. I have yet to hear about them trying to squash a small designer/maker. Just large ones that should know better.
bustapr
Distinguished
- Jan 23, 2009
- 1,613
- 0
- 19,780
Everyone knows that monopolizing the market is ilegal. Microsoft threatening to sue or demand licsensing fees to companies if the sell google products is ILEGAL. Google and the affected companies can now happily file a good ole lawsuit to make MS piss in the other direction.
awood28211
Distinguished
- Aug 1, 2007
- 204
- 0
- 18,680
Everyone has their view how things SHOULD be... forget that. We work in a world of how things ARE. IF Microsoft holds a patent on something then they are legally allowed to recoup costs/prevent use of someone elses product that infringes. Period. It doesn't matter if anyone thinks it's right or wrong. It's how it is people. If I held a patent on optical mice then I am LEGALLY allowed to pursue compensation for everyone who has ever made one... It is others responsibility to sue to have that patent invalidated but until that occurs, I would have just as many rights legally as the guy who patents a machine that automatically washes windows...or anything else. Fixing the patent system is irrelevant until it happens... And if this patent MS speaks of is directly related to Active sync for exchange it's most likely one that will not be invalidated... and MS will win any court case if others are violating it.
My issue with it all is... How does someone become responsible for infringement that is caused by a 3rd party? Google infringes on an MS patent then provides that infringement unknowingly to the phone companies and somehow the the phone company is responsible?
Isn't that like Apple suing HP because MS infringed Apple's patent but HP uses the MS product on PC's they sell?
I understand the "free" and "open source" but that makes the assumption that all who would use (and infringe) the patent would know how to "fix" the issue and remove the infringement. Google provided a product and should be responsible for any infringement.
My issue with it all is... How does someone become responsible for infringement that is caused by a 3rd party? Google infringes on an MS patent then provides that infringement unknowingly to the phone companies and somehow the the phone company is responsible?
Isn't that like Apple suing HP because MS infringed Apple's patent but HP uses the MS product on PC's they sell?
I understand the "free" and "open source" but that makes the assumption that all who would use (and infringe) the patent would know how to "fix" the issue and remove the infringement. Google provided a product and should be responsible for any infringement.
How much it the MS licensing fee for its patents related to electricty? I believe in the free market so I won't say this is anti trust or strong arm monopoly tactics (since its not even remotely a monopoly). I will say this is just bush-league, low class, small-time-hood, Longshoreman-esque. I own the patent for oxygen. Almost 7 billion people owe me royalties for breathing it. MS, this is pretty getto.
[citation][nom]bustapr[/nom]Everyone knows that monopolizing the market is ilegal. Microsoft threatening to sue or demand licsensing fees to companies if the sell google products is ILEGAL. Google and the affected companies can now happily file a good ole lawsuit to make MS piss in the other direction.[/citation]
It is not illegal if they are infringing on Microsoft owned patents. If they are using MS tech without licensing well guess what? THAT is illegal.
It is not illegal if they are infringing on Microsoft owned patents. If they are using MS tech without licensing well guess what? THAT is illegal.
[citation][nom]deweycd[/nom]Microsoft has been very generous with people using it's patents. It tends not to charge for a patent infringement unless the company is reaping in huge wads of cash at the cost of Microsoft's business. I have yet to hear about them trying to squash a small designer/maker. Just large ones that should know better.[/citation]
deweycd must be very young. As such, I will not delve into the ancient history of the 80's and early 90's, but will stick to Internet history. Netscape never, ever made wads of cash. Free browser to the users, they made their money with bundling contracts, and at that, it was not much money. For a pittance, Microsoft could have included it with every copy of Windows, but instead, they had the bright idea to control the internet like they did the desktop. You may be familiar with all the proprietary junk that makes IE 6 such an internet wonder? That is a direct result of this strategy in action. Thank goodness Microsoft finally threw in the towel, and thank you Mozilla for continuing the fight after Netscape was squashed.
In short, Microsoft is not interested in doing any favors for you. Microsoft is looking out for Microsoft exclusively, and anyone in the way is squashed, unless they are big enough to squash back.
Taiwanese companies are famous for skipping the lawsuit and paying the license, regardless of it's merits.
deweycd must be very young. As such, I will not delve into the ancient history of the 80's and early 90's, but will stick to Internet history. Netscape never, ever made wads of cash. Free browser to the users, they made their money with bundling contracts, and at that, it was not much money. For a pittance, Microsoft could have included it with every copy of Windows, but instead, they had the bright idea to control the internet like they did the desktop. You may be familiar with all the proprietary junk that makes IE 6 such an internet wonder? That is a direct result of this strategy in action. Thank goodness Microsoft finally threw in the towel, and thank you Mozilla for continuing the fight after Netscape was squashed.
In short, Microsoft is not interested in doing any favors for you. Microsoft is looking out for Microsoft exclusively, and anyone in the way is squashed, unless they are big enough to squash back.
Taiwanese companies are famous for skipping the lawsuit and paying the license, regardless of it's merits.
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
HTC wouldn't sign up any licence agreement unless it was valid.
So for all the MS haters out there you have to realise that if Android has code that is owned by MS and cannot be used without licence then that's exactly what you have to pay up for. If you don't like it, why don't you write a whole new version of Android that has none of the licenced MS code in it.
No?
Didn't think so.
So for all the MS haters out there you have to realise that if Android has code that is owned by MS and cannot be used without licence then that's exactly what you have to pay up for. If you don't like it, why don't you write a whole new version of Android that has none of the licenced MS code in it.
No?
Didn't think so.
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]HTC wouldn't sign up any licence agreement unless it was valid.So for all the MS haters out there you have to realise that if Android has code that is owned by MS and cannot be used without licence then that's exactly what you have to pay up for. If you don't like it, why don't you write a whole new version of Android that has none of the licenced MS code in it.No?Didn't think so.[/citation]
Patents don't have anything to do with code. So Android isn't using any kind of code from microsoft. Patents is all about ideas.
If you have an idea about something that isn't patented yet, you can submit a patent even without implementing the idea or if that idea has already been implemented by someone. And this is it's weakness.
Patents don't have anything to do with code. So Android isn't using any kind of code from microsoft. Patents is all about ideas.
If you have an idea about something that isn't patented yet, you can submit a patent even without implementing the idea or if that idea has already been implemented by someone. And this is it's weakness.
descendency
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2008
- 582
- 0
- 18,990
[citation][nom]FinlayG[/nom]You have got to be kidding me. Micro$oft owns e-mail? This is just petty.[/citation]
It's about the same as Apple owning multi-touch.
It's about the same as Apple owning multi-touch.
[citation][nom]bourgeoisdude[/nom]...Marcus, you know exactly how to report something in such a way to mislead people--without appearing to purposely mislead them. I have nothing against Android phones (in fact I recommend them and am seriously considering one), but what Google is doing here is wrong.The royalties MS is after are related to ActiveSync (designed to synchronize email directly with Microsoft Exchange servers), something Google hasn't paid for since they originally used it on the first Android based phones. While there are many, many cases of patent trolls or stupid patent-related lawsuits, this is definitely not one of them. Why Google expects to be able to use MS technology without paying for it is beyond my comprehension.[/citation]
As much as I would like to agree to that statement, never have I used my android to connect to an exchange server. That suit is BS in its entirety.
As much as I would like to agree to that statement, never have I used my android to connect to an exchange server. That suit is BS in its entirety.
They're just using their huge wallets to put their hand in everyone's pockets like they don't already have enough money. Plus their mad that other people make much better products than they do. So many different versions of Windows and still haven't gotten it right yet.
carnage9270
Distinguished
- Oct 21, 2008
- 44
- 0
- 18,530
I'm sure this has everything to do with syncing your phone with Microsoft Exchange servers. It is part of your licensing agreement when you purchase Microsoft Exchange that you buy client licenses for every client that connects. Companies knew this going into the purchase. Google is no better than the average consumer when it comes to this license (Although they get licensing breaks for purchasing for an entire device line). If you connect to an Exchange server, you need a license. Can you get around this and not use a license? Sure, but it's not legal no matter what method you use to circumvent that license.
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]You Linux funboys just keep your .2% market share. MS doesn't have a patent on email but if you did some actual research instead of flapping your gums you'd know they do own patents on how devices utilize email. Last time I checked MS was in business to make money. MS could careless about Linux..why? refer back to the .2% market share.[/citation]
I can assure you MS do care about linux, from Steve Ballmer's own mouth "we're very focused in on both Apple as a competitor, and Linux as a competitor"
And don't believe that linux only has 1-2% desktop market share, take a look at this article http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09/debunking-the-1-myth.html
I can assure you MS do care about linux, from Steve Ballmer's own mouth "we're very focused in on both Apple as a competitor, and Linux as a competitor"
And don't believe that linux only has 1-2% desktop market share, take a look at this article http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2010/09/debunking-the-1-myth.html
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]Patents don't have anything to do with code. So Android isn't using any kind of code from microsoft. Patents is all about ideas.[/citation]
Err, beg to differ
...
Seing as you can patent code, it goes that MS has done so, also that Android contains parts of that code.
I'm not being funny or anything but stop just making it up as you go along, if the patent office says that MS has a patent then clearly it does.
Err, beg to differ
...
Seing as you can patent code, it goes that MS has done so, also that Android contains parts of that code.
I'm not being funny or anything but stop just making it up as you go along, if the patent office says that MS has a patent then clearly it does.
dsolom3
Distinguished
- Apr 10, 2006
- 45
- 0
- 18,530
I have a solution for all computer manufacturers who want to sell me a cheaper computer without Windows:
Ship the thing without ANY SOFTWARE, linux or BSD or Windows, save a drivers disk. No "infringing" products = no penalties. Plus that will save me time wiping the HDD from whatever linux distro came with it to install the one I want.
Ship the thing without ANY SOFTWARE, linux or BSD or Windows, save a drivers disk. No "infringing" products = no penalties. Plus that will save me time wiping the HDD from whatever linux distro came with it to install the one I want.
[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]They shouldn't have to. APIs and protocols should be open for everyone to use. Patenting them inhibits technological advancement. But this is how Microsoft's business model has always worked. Vendor lock-in is at the heart of their operation. Openness is bad for their aging business model. Microsoft has most corporations by the neck because they already use Exchange and migrating to something else is simply not practical. Since Microsoft software is designed to work properly only with Microsoft software (much like Apple), you are stuck with it and better be ready to pay for upgrades when Steve Ballmer decides that he needs another executive bonus.[/citation]
This is no different than any other corporation on the planet. They are ALL greed driven. Blame the stock market. A profiting company is not good enough for investors. It has to be INCREASING profit. It forces companies to do everything they can to grow and grow, at the expense of everyone else.
This is no different than any other corporation on the planet. They are ALL greed driven. Blame the stock market. A profiting company is not good enough for investors. It has to be INCREASING profit. It forces companies to do everything they can to grow and grow, at the expense of everyone else.
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]You Linux funboys just keep your .2% market share. MS doesn't have a patent on email but if you did some actual research instead of flapping your gums you'd know they do own patents on how devices utilize email. Last time I checked MS was in business to make money. MS could careless about Linux..why? refer back to the .2% market share.[/citation]
It really sounds like YOU should make more research "instead of flapping your gums". And yes, you're right that Microsoft COULD care less about Linux.
]
It really sounds like YOU should make more research "instead of flapping your gums". And yes, you're right that Microsoft COULD care less about Linux.
]
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram