|
Microsoft wants $15 for every Samsung Android device sold
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 6 July, 2011
Android is a very lucrative business for Microsoft.
Following its recent trend of pressuring handset makers to pay up, Microsoft is demanding that Samsung pay $15 to the software giant for each Android smartphone they build.
Microsoft has a large range of patents used in Android and has already gotten four companies (including HTC) to sign similar licensing agreements.
Samsung, ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
SomeBozo
Member
2 product reviews
|
6. July 2011 @ 13:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
As a whole MS is being very hypocritical? They say they have all these patents, and the hail of what MS has always said in the past is they want to innovate and provided consumers with great products... blah blah blah... My question is how can MS have all these patents, a phone platform of their own and yet produce a phone others would rather avoid. Latest numbers is MS has 5% of the phone market and lost 1.8% last month. Not saying what Android did in using MS's patents is right, but still, i think it shows MS is not really interested in producing the best phone then possibly could for consumers. I was hired at MS in 1996 and the motto then was "Do more for customers then they expect", the motto of today is "Find the lowest quality bar to sh1t it out." The difference between Gates and Balmer, i'm only confused why Balmer is still around especially with MS's policy of "Good Attrition".
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
6. July 2011 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
Um the facts are in the text, no "say" about it, Microsoft do own those patents.
The argument is about the level of royalty, if everyone else is paying up and not fighting over it what makes Samsung think it should be the exception?
No point moaning that Microsoft get a royalty, that's what happens when you create and patent something.
Apple rake in a huge mark-up on their stuff just cos it has that little 'i', but this it would appear is a case of Samsung imagining that they shouldn't have to pay what everyone else is paying.
|
|
baxter00
Member
|
6. July 2011 @ 17:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
I want $10 every time someone turns around in my driveway. I own it, and they can't use it without my permission, and if they have my permission, they should pay me for the right to use it.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
6. July 2011 @ 21:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah if only that worked just like patents do, eh?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
6. July 2011 @ 22:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
The big issue is that most of the patents are extremely vague, and were filed after the ideas were already on the market and created by someone else (often they were even patented by someone else).
They patent things like, "Entering data by use of keypad" and "Using a touchscreen display as an input device"...and amazingly, the patent offices let them get away with it...even while they use a keypad from someone else to input the patent data!
|
|
biglo30
Senior Member
|
6. July 2011 @ 23:06 |
Link to this message
|
|
Most patents these days doesn't even make any sense. I mean for example to have a patent on scrolling on a touch screen by flicking up or down is down right stupid as anyone with expect it to be that way. Really don't understand what going on in the world of technology these days.
|
|
oappi
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
7. July 2011 @ 11:02 |
Link to this message
|
@Killerbug
True what i have heard is that patent office (in us) gets paid from accepted patents. So basically if they pass more patents they get more money, and actual validation of patent is done in court. If i remember correctly there are at least 4 thing that are required from patent to be valid. One was "innovation" so if the patent is something totally stupid you might be sued, but most likely it wont stand and patent is no longer valid after court decides against you. Thus no-one has to pay for that patent anymore. Also there is "it has to have value to industry" and "it must be new". So if you told your best pal with out nda agreement you patent can be broken, unless you friend wont tell anyone about it.
Maybe samsung wants to see Ms patents bit closer and validate them in court. If court finds it in favor of samsung it would cost a lot for ms since companies like htc wouldn't have to pay for microsoft anymore.
I for one think patents are important because they encourage companies to develop new things. If everyone would just copy each other no-one would want to develop anything new, but they shouldn't give patents like they do today. It is too easy to get silly patents and they last too long. i would say that at least computer science related patents should last maximum of 5 years, but for example medical patents that take a lot of money (to research) might be ok to have longer period something like 10-15 years.
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
7. July 2011 @ 12:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
M$ is pulling the old Thomas Edison routine... file the patent first & reap the rewards. They're not the least bit interested in quality returns on their side of manufacturing. That's not their trade anyway.
Next thing you know they'll be dipping into adhesives & pharmaceuticals to get a handle on that market as well. It's nothing but the paycheck folks, pure and greed simple.
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
7. July 2011 @ 20:28 |
Link to this message
|
I think the issue here is that everyone is just guessing & being vague.
I'd like to see exactly which patents are in question here that earn MS $15 a time from everyone else and then get some idea of whether it is reasonable for Samsung to be questioning it.
It'll be interesting to see if they think their case is strong enough to risk going to court, when nobody else did.
....and if it turns out MS have an excellent case here I wonder how many making these vague criticisms of MS would admit their being right to defend their patents and the validity of their royalty claim?
|
|
dookus
Newbie
|
8. July 2011 @ 06:03 |
Link to this message
|
How come Apple are immune to these patents?
"If I meet you, I'll CTRL+Alt+delete you"
|
|
nbdjlcrs
Newbie
|
8. July 2011 @ 06:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by dookus:
How come Apple are immune to these patents?
Apply arent Immune, they pay Nokia a licence fee to use there patents "We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees," crows Nokia CEO Stephen Elop"
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
8. July 2011 @ 10:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
I think the issue here is that everyone is just guessing & being vague.
Speaking for myself, I was purposely being factious & contemptuous for nothing more than it was ingrained into my DNA and that I would really like to see the current "screw the consumer & corporate mission" business model established back in the mid 70s dissolve into something more traditional with a forward thinking twist.
God forbid the US sets a new business standard that actually benefits the earth (ecologically as well as economically) rather than setting the standard in sodomy.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. July 2011 @ 10:10
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
8. July 2011 @ 21:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
LordRuss
I'm all for a move away for the over-sized tunnel-visioned international corporations making the planet a toilet with its necessary proportion of global humanity who must lose out so that others gain.
I just get a bit bored seeing pretty much one single corp continually targetted when they are all symptomatic of the same disease.
(and I have no problems with patents, so long as a reasonable 'fair-use' element is included for private non-commercial punters)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. July 2011 @ 21:22
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
8. July 2011 @ 22:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Interestx:
...(and I have no problems with patents, so long as a reasonable 'fair-use' element is included for private non-commercial punters)
It was 'kinda' that way for a while there in the 70's when audio technology was having a go at it. Philips I believe was the one setting the pace. They did it with the cassette tapes and then with the cd players. Couldn't tell you who or what started turning the whole thing on its ear was either before or after that time period, but we see where it has come since.
All I can definitely say is, there is definitely a better way than what is being done right now.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Interestx
Senior Member
|
9. July 2011 @ 14:54 |
Link to this message
|
Ditto VHS recording.
Now they seem to feel entitled to destroy your life & ruin you for life over copying a film or album (which has nothing to do with you ever trying to make money out of it for yourself).
|
