Can We Just Admit That It's Insane When Microsoft Has A 'Licensing Program' For Someone Else's Products?

from the just-saying dept

There have been a string of similar "deals" announced recently (though we do wonder about the details), but Microsoft has announced that Qanta is the latest company to "license" its usage of Android and Chrome. Here's Microsoft's quote on the subject:
"We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Quanta, and proud of the continued success of our Android licensing program in resolving IP issues surrounding Android and Chrome devices in the marketplace."
Let's sit back and consider the sheer insanity of this entire effort. Microsoft is going around, trying to get lots of companies to buy licenses to Google's products, when there is simply no evidence that those products infringe on any Microsoft patents. And, notably, Microsoft has never sued Google over those products.

I'd be interested to see if anyone can explain how a system that allows a company like Microsoft to set up a licensing business on someone else's products without any proven legal basis other than the implied threat that they might sue, is a functioning system? It's a huge joke.

Filed Under: android, chrome, licensing, patents
Companies: google, microsoft, qanta

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    Willton, 17 Oct 2011 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Microsoft "Licensing" of Google's Products

    We need "loser pays lower of two legal fees". In this case, if a large company sues an individual or small company and the defendant is successful, they get their legal fees back.

    If an individual or small company sues and is wrong, they have to pay their legal fees again to the large company. It doesn't bankrupt them, but they will certainly think twice about filing frivolous lawsuits when it costs them double legal fees.

    First of all, the system already sanctions plaintiffs for bringing frivolous lawsuits by making them pay the defendant's attorney's fees. The problem is that you clearly have a much looser definition of "frivolous" than the legal community does. Second, a "loser pays" system will place a chilling effect on plaintiffs who have legitimate legal claims against tortfeasors. That, in my view, is bad policy.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.