Boycott against corporate greed
Published October 25, 2011
Summary:Yesterday news came out that Microsoft is boasting about a total of 10 patent deals being signed so far, with Android phone manufacturers. In case you haven't been following these so-called "patent deals", Microsoft has been keeping a long list of Android manufacturers and has been checking off one by one on its list to keep Google's Android phones from continuing their dominance of the mobile phone market.
Yesterday news came out that Microsoft is boasting about a total of 10 patent deals being signed so far, with Android phone manufacturers. In case you haven't been following these so-called "patent deals", Microsoft has been keeping a long list of Android manufacturers and has been checking off one by one on its list to keep Google's Android phones from continuing their dominance of the mobile phone market. But why? Microsoft claims that the Android phones violate multiple of its software patents. And they probably do, since Microsoft has been able to get away with these deals with so many companies so far and also has the power and means register thousands of patents.
But let's step back and look at the big picture. Microsoft didn't start proposing these deals until Android started to grow and gain high market success. To me, it's just plain old greed that's getting the best of Microsoft. And now Microsoft has the legal means to squeeze everything out of Android that it can, hoping to help its struggling Windows Phone 7 in the mobile phone market. Microsoft is betting on mobile phone manufacturers to change to Windows Phone 7 because they are the ones getting stuck paying the fees to Microsoft. It's a great situation for Microsoft, but it is costing Android manufacturers a fixed fee per device, which they may end up passing down to the consumer. So who gets hurt? The consumer, again. Does Microsoft care? Only if it helps its own bottom line, even at the additional expense of consumers. Microsoft has hurt consumers out of greed time after time, even its own customers.
Microsoft has recently started to call these patent deals "license agreements". To me, a license agreement would be for an active Microsoft product. These patent deals are not about active Microsoft products, but about the competitor's products. Android is Google's operating system, so to hear Microsoft say they are in "license agreements" for Android is just plain wacky. Microsoft has no need to enter into agreements over the competitor's products, other than because of greed.
Hundreds of thousands of protestors have walked the streets of New York's Wall Street to make their statement against corporate greed recently. It's something that governments are designed to protect citizens from, however in the case of software patents, governments have not been able to do anything about it yet. Cases are currently being examined by high courts over software patents, so I suspect Microsoft is trying to get away with everything it can as quickly as possible. It seems every couple of weeks, new software patent deals are announced.
I know companies need to survive, however there is a point where it is overkill
to continually thrash about and hurt consumers in the process. As I have mentioned
before, consumers have the power to make a statement, just as the protestors
on Wall Street have done. And in the case against software patents, not buying
Microsoft products is one way to make that statement. I have stopped buying
Microsoft products roughly about 10 years ago. I will not support a greedy company
that is on a relentless journey to frighten each competitor into shelling out
money, with software patents. Microsoft should be meeting its competitors in
the marketplace by releasing top quality products that are appealing, not sneak
around behind the consumer's backs by cowardly setting up secret patent deals.
Comments:
Chris_Clay Oct 26, 2011
Jack: "Still, it's interesting that your tediously boring anti-Microsoft
hate campaign doesn't extend to Oracle, which is suing Google and demanding
that all copies of Android are impounded and destroyed. (Larry and Steve always
were best mates.)" You've brought it up many times about other companies
like Apple, etc., too. But you provide nothing to back it up. I was still waiting
for something on your statement about Apple blocking imports of Android. A single
case of one company against another is one thing. But when you see Microsoft
bullying a long list of companies, with the sacrifice of lower quality software
and damage to consumers, it gets a little ridiculous, which is where it's at
today. I don't agree with how other businesses operate as well, but the reason
I bring up Microsoft is because (as I have already mentioned before) they choose
to go way above and beyond everybody else with bad business practices. If you
agree and like what they do, or you pretend to look the other way while they
continue with bad business practices, then good for you. After all, it's a lot
easier to stand next to the king in power, and cheer for him, rather than do
what's morally right. patronanej0:Thanks for the additional info regarding the
Barnes & Noble case. You are right and it will be interesting to see how
that one unfolds.
patronanej0 Oct 26, 2011
Oooh--apologies for the double post.
patronanej0 Oct 26, 2011
@ Jack Schofield: "Microsoft believes in charging for its IP, exactly
like IBM and every other commercial company...." No, not at all like "every
other commercial company"--more like SCO/Caldera, a dead and unlamented
IP extortion racket whose lawsuits against Linux were largely funded by Microsoft.
What Barnes & Noble had balls enough to disclose [http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf]
is that Microsoft believe in : acquiring patent protection by illegally misrepresenting
the prior art; illegally broadening the scope of its patents in seeking injunctive
relief; conspiring with holders of other significant patent portfolios to suppress
competition via cartel behaviour; impermissibly asserting violations of inapplicable
patents; obfuscating this behaviour by impermissibly applying NDA protection
to public information; and obtaining assent to anticompetitive licensing agreements
by threatening protracted- and expensive litigation. The patent system was intended
to encourage innovation and an open market; its abuse has reached a point that
requires intervention. This is a great case where the white hats and black hats
are clear; the President could effect immediate and voluntary reform with the
threat of an executive order.If thi isn't already permissible at the discretion
of the presiding judge, the Obama Administration should allow the U.S. Patent
Office to send an administrative examiner-in-amicus into the courtroom with
the power of summary invalidation--mooting disputes over patents which should
never have been awarded, and discouraging bad actors from exposing vulnerable
patents to civil action.
BrownieBoy-4ea41
BrownieBoy-4ea41 Oct 25, 2011
> Spare us the laughable attempt at self-justification. Haterz gonna hate,
after all.... Honestly, Jack. All these years as a journalist and you still
haven't worked out that when you attack the person, you merely demonstrate your
own inability to counter his or her arguments. your tediously boring anti-Microsoft
hate campaign doesn't extend to Oracle, which is suing Google and demanding
that all copies of Android are impounded A couple of years back, I read a biography
of Mao Tse-tung. As you might imagine, the author - I forget his name now -
had some rather harsh things to say about his subject. And yet, at no point
did I feel any urge to contact him to ask why he'd listed all of Mao's atrocities
when Hitler and Stalin were so much worse. (The thing is, you see, his book
was about Mao.)
Jack Schofield Oct 25, 2011
@apexwm however Microsoft has taken this unfortunate fault in the patent system
and is leveraging it everywhere it can. To me, this is very wrong. Spare us
the laughable attempt at self-justification. Haterz gonna hate, after all....
It is surprising that Google hasn't been able to do much against these secret
patent deals over Android It's entirely Microsoft's fault that Google doesn't
have the guts to stand behind its product and defend its OEM users, of course.Still,
it's interesting that your tediously boring anti-Microsoft hate campaign doesn't
extend to Oracle, which is suing Google and demanding that all copies of Android
are impounded and destroyed. (Larry and Steve always were best mates.)
BrownieBoy-4ea41 Oct 25, 2011
@Jack, Microsoft believes in charging for its IP, exactly like IBM and every
other commercial company. It's not trying to stop people importing or selling
Android devices, which is Apple's approach. Perhaps if you weren't consumed
by anti-Microsoft hatred you might take a more balanced view? Let's look at
Microsoft's "IP" claims against Android. (Not always easy because
Microsoft makes a company sign a Non Disclosure Agreement before it will even
say which patents are being infringed!!!) Thankfully, Barnes and Noble blew
the whole racket out of the window quite recently. Read all about it at: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110427052238659
Points 31 to 37 of B&N's response cover the so-called infringing patents.
One patent covers the placing of a loading status icon in a browser. Another
covers the loading of information in a web page before an image on that web
page has displayed itself. Yet another covers a way of changing properties for
a selection of text. And so on. Remember, that to be enforceable, patents have
to be non-trivial and non-obvious. They can also be invalidated by prior art
- i.e. somebody else did it before. Now I don't agree at all with what Apple's
doing against Android, but you can, at least, see that Jobs had *some* kind
of a point: Android does look an awful lot like iOS. But now iOS is starting
to incorporate features that first appeared in Android. Apple can't have it
both ways!Microsoft's claims against Android, on the other hand, are a complete
nonsense from start to finish.
Edstertech
Edstertech Oct 25, 2011
Apexwm, MS block until they get the cash - Apple just block.Personally, I prefer
the former to the latter as it keeps up competition and forces everyone to innovate.
Chris_Clay Oct 25, 2011
AndyPagin : You definitely make some very good points and I too wonder how
this can be tolerated. Personally, I avoid buying Microsoft products, which
doesn't do a lot of good until more people start doing the same. 1000099915:That
is an interesting take and time will tell what happens. It is surprising that
Google hasn't been able to do much against these secret patent deals over Android,
or has chosen not to, other than the fact that Google bought Motorola which
was a big move.
Chris_Clay Oct 25, 2011
Hi Jack: "It's not trying to stop people importing or selling Android
devices, which is Apple's approach." On the contrary, reports have surfaced
that state that Microsoft IS trying to block imports of Android phones: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/microsoft-continues-fight-against-motorola-seeks-to-block-imports-of-android-phones/
http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-continues-fight-against-motorola-seeks-block-imports-154030174.html
Or how about further reports of Microsoft blocking imports of the Barnes &
Noble Nook which runs the Android operating system: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-22/microsoft-seeks-to-block-imports-of-barnes-noble-s-nook.html
There are countless other articles all over about this. Apple? The patent case
of Apple & HTC made the news earlier this year, but I don't recall seeing
Apple making a huge list of vendors to sign secret patent agreements with, checking
them off one by one. With this said, I don't agree with Apple's moves, but they
haven't been as numerous as Microsoft's. Could you provide evidence to back
up your statement about Apple blocking imports specifically?There's no doubt
Apple has a huge pile of cash, just like Microsoft, and has had software patent
cases, just like Microsoft; however Microsoft has taken this unfortunate fault
in the patent system and is leveraging it everywhere it can. To me, this is
very wrong.
1000099915 Oct 25, 2011
MS do not have to provide evidence until someone challenges them. The licence
deal protects the party-of-the-second-part, in case Microsoft decide to action.
The Apple situation is slightly different. Apple are intent on destroying Android
by concerted attack. What Microsoft is doing strikes me to be akin to a protection
racket. The more people they sign up the less likely they are to be challenged.
In fact, Microsoft cannot really lose unless Google steps into the ring and
asks to see just what Microsoft think they have got. (Of course Google may already
know the answer and decide to cower in the corner, instead). I wouldn't worry
too much about corporate greed. These big companies will spend so much of their
time, waving sheaves of patent documents and suing one another that they won't
have the time nor the energy to innovate anything worthwhile. T'will be the
lawyers and the Chinese that inherit the earth!It is all very tiresome really...
AndyPagin-3879e Oct 25, 2011
Has MS actually provided any evidence to support their claims of patent violations?
To me it looks like little more than blackmail - either you pay us protection
money or we'll bankrupt you with drawn out legal action. It's interesting that
they're trying to claim their 'licensing' Android, it's like they're trying
to claim possession of Android by a process of osmosis. As in "Well of
course we [MS] own Android, after all everyone pays us a licence fee to use
it" I wonder what the end game will be? MS threatening Linux distributors
because Linux infringes patents applying to Microsofts' Android product?It's
like what MS has done so many times in the past, unable to innovate or compete
with anyone else they buy 'em out or sue them to ensure that MS is the only
'choice' consumers have. I simply cannot understand how the hell MS have got
away with this for so long, I can't think of any other industry where that sort
of behaviour would be tolerated.
Jack Schofield Oct 25, 2011
Microsoft believes in charging for its IP, exactly like IBM and every other commercial company. It's not trying to stop people importing or selling Android devices, which is Apple's approach. Perhaps if you weren't consumed by anti-Microsoft hatred you might take a more balanced view?How much consumers are actually "hurt" is an interesting question, since the smartphone is essentially a luxury item for people rich enough to indulge their whims. Either way, it's Apple that has piled up $80 billion in cash, and I don't see too many people screaming from the pain of buying an overpriced iPhone....