A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by extension on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:10PM (#2854178)

What should they have done differently? Wait 10 years until they amass their own patent portfolio? Android could have been less similar to iPhone, but up against tens of thousands of bogus patents, would that really make a difference? Anything that was competitive would have provoked an attack.

Frankly, it should be ok to enter the market the way Google did.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by brudgers on Saturday August 06, 2011 @04:11PM (#2854809)

Irrespective of should or shouldn't, it isn't. And Google knows it now, and should have known it then. They could have licensed the relevant patents - after all, that appears to be what Apple did in the case of Loadsys and the reason they are not being sued, and it appears to be what Microsoft did with portions of the Nortel portfolio which is why they were concerned enough to participate in its purchase.

With Android Google stepped into a mature market for the first time and appears to have committed rookie errors - it's not the stuff in the Nortel or Novell portfolios which is generating income for Microsoft - and a lot of Microsoft's patents were created through old fashioned in-house R&D - exactly the sort of innovation which should be protected.

<cynical_speculation>It may have been in Google's interest to turn Andorid into Open Source in October of 2008 due to the liability incurred when Microsoft acquired Danger's patent portfolio earlier in the year. Particularly in light of Google's antipatent corporate culture and Andy Rubin's role in creating Google's phone software.</cynical_speculation>

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by nitrogen on Saturday August 06, 2011 @07:36PM (#2855188)

...a lot of Microsoft's patents were created through old fashioned in-house R&D - exactly the sort of innovation which should be protected.

Only if that "innovation" is actually novel, non-obvious, specific, and useful, and certainly not for 20 years (roughly 13 generations in tech years).

It may have been in Google's interest to turn Andorid into Open Source in October of 2008 due to the liability incurred when Microsoft acquired Danger's patent portfolio earlier in the year.

If Android was always based on the Linux kernel, then they probably had an open source plan from the beginning.

Edit: With Android Google stepped into a mature market for the first time and appears to have committed rookie errors

This sounds like code for "Google stepped into our territory and didn't pay its protection money."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: A Brief Explanation of Microsoft's Anti-Google Patent FUD by extension on Sunday August 07, 2011 @02:58AM (#2856041)

Well I, for one, am glad that Google recklessly does business in ways that they should have every right to, rather than quietly submitting to shakedowns and bullying. If they are willing to get nailed to a cross to spread awareness of these problems, kudos to them.

[ Parent | on HN ]