mrojas | # 21 | 2010-04-28, 16:05 | Report

From reading this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/cell-phones/?...g=content;col1 about the Exchange integration, and the fact that only HTC is involved (for now), I think that HTC used some of their know-how in ActiveSync (that comes from their experience in Windows Mobile devices) for their Android devices.

However, Active Sync needs to be licensed, because it is Microsoft technology. I bet HTC got careless and forgot about it.

No need to cry "the wolf is coming" yet.

wmarone | # 22 | 2010-04-28, 16:07 | Report

The issue here is that in most companies, their software engineers (indeed, all engineers) are instructed NOT to look at patents or look for prior art. This is because if you infringe, you triple the damages.

In software, this is also because it is trivial to run over numerous existing software patents in the course of product development. This raises serious questions as to the value of the patents in question, as it dampens any sense of "non-obviousness." Many are hoping for re. Bilski to hinder software patents.


This is par for the course in the past 20 years of Microsoft's existence. They're more than willing to do anything it takes (even commit crimes) if it means driving competitors out of the marketplace.

Possible, but unlikely. They explicitly stated Android and Linux as being the targets of this "deal" with the express intent of trying to make people either reconsider using Android and Linux, or to easily give MS money.

I'd rather they be forced to come clean on the patents so they can be removed or invalidated.

Well we don't know. And Microsoft wants it that way. They want to cast the aura that "if you use Android and Linux, Microsoft may sue you if you don't give them lots of money."

---

Last edited by wmarone; 2010-04-28 at 16:09.

mrojas | # 23 | 2010-04-28, 16:08 | Report

A Microsoft statement:

"“As you may be aware, many technology companies active in the growing smartphone space have been taking increasing steps to protect their inventions. As the two companies have a long history of technical and commercial collaboration, Microsoft views this agreement as an effective example of how industry leaders can reach commercially reasonable arrangements that address intellectual property concerns.”"

From http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=...ontent;wrapper

I say, I prefer what MS did (reach out for an agreement) compared to what Apple did (sue the hell out of them.

mmurfin87 | # 24 | 2010-04-28, 16:18 | Report

Without more information, a rational judgement isn't possible. So unless someone has new information to post, there isn't going to be any meaningful discussion beyond the Microsoft vs Linux debate.

rm42 | # 25 | 2010-04-28, 16:20 | Report

This problem is not going to be solved as long as the world is ruled by selfishness and greed. Seriously. But, it is an interesting topic to think about and to debate. Microsoft represents one extreme view on the subject. The other extreme is the one represented by the Free Software Foundation. It is a good thing to understand both points of view before formulating your own. It sounds like you are familiar with the pro software patent point of view. Here is some interesting material on the opposing view:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/softwa...y-patents.html

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html

http://progfree.org/Patents/industry-at-risk.html

http://patentabsurdity.com/

ysss | # 26 | 2010-04-28, 16:32 | Report

A major portion of this 'atmosphere of FUD' is created by the responses we generate ourselves. Let's respond intelligently so as not to perpetuate baseless FUD.

mrojas | # 27 | 2010-04-28, 16:44 | Report

More info from Engadget:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/m...-licenses-htc/

While the UI part is a bit vague, the only thing I can think about that could be Microsoft's in Android would be the use of FAT32 (like the demand to TomTom) and ActiveSync. Any ideas?

ysss | # 28 | 2010-04-28, 16:53 | Report

Wow, that's really interesting.

If the infringement is not due to any htc-specific implementation (hw/sw), why would htc settle this directly with MS?

Doesn't it make more sense to HTC to let Google settle all android-related infringements for everyone in their consortium?

mrojas | # 29 | 2010-04-28, 16:58 | Report

One of the comments in Engadget offers an interesting idea:

"
You guys are all WRONG. Microsoft and HTC are pals. Microsoft just helped HTC big time here...

“Microsoft Corp. and HTC Corp. have signed a patent agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for HTC’s mobile phones running the Android mobile platform” (Emphasis mine)

So yes, this seems to be Microsoft lending its (undoubtedly massive) arsenal of patents to help HTC and Google combat Apple (though, naturally, the rationale behind the deal — and Apple — are never named). It’s hard to imagine what else this could possibly be about [more below]. It’s also hard to figure out why Microsoft sent this release out at 11:30 at night."

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/m...ents/27474201/

So, let's imagine this scenario: When Apple takes HTC to the court, HTC could invoke Microsoft's patent licensing coverage as a defense...

wmarone | # 30 | 2010-04-28, 16:59 | Report

Because MS doesn't want any such patent infringement cases to be challenged. If they went after Android directly, Google would likely defend and try to move for invalidation. Worse yet, even if they were "valid," the moment the patents were exposed the kernel community would move to remove them if possible, or find prior art to aid Google in invalidation.

It's all about the perception Microsoft casts to other companies interested in Android and Linux. They want to make it look like a risky proposition.

Just ask Miguel de Icaza, who has faced huge amounts of resistance to his push to get Mono and .NET integrated into GNOME, due to MS's tendency to subtly introduce patent lawsuit FUD.

Only if they were somehow the same patents, and MS had the right to grant them.

---

Last edited by wmarone; 2010-04-28 at 17:01.