Microsoft Sues Motorola For Patent Infringement... Over Android

from the well,-here-we-go... dept

Just as Microsoft is out there trying to make bad patents easier to invalidate, it's still acting like a big patent bully itself. Remember a few months back when it got HTC to license some patents, which Microsoft claimed covered Google's Android mobile operating system? Well, apparently, Motorola wasn't willing to do any sort of deal like that, so Microsoft has sued Motorola. Microsoft itself was kind enough to send us the press release, which is full of some pretty ridiculous statements from Microsoft's Horacio Gutierrez (with whom I rarely agree on anything):
"We have a responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year in bringing innovative software products and services to market."
Really? Please explain how suing some other company helps your customers? Amusingly, on Microsoft's own blog post about the lawsuit, nearly all of the comments are trashing Microsoft for litigating rather than innovating.

And, of course, to be extra obnoxious, rather than just suing, Microsoft is using the ITC loophole to get two cracks and forcing Motorola to pay.

As for which patents are being claimed here, Gutierrez in the blog post and in the press release makes some crazy statements implying that the only way to do synchronized email, calendars and contacts, or to notify apps of battery power is to violate Microsoft's patents. Below is the list of patents that Microsoft is suing over. It's hard to pick out which one is the most ridiculous:
  • 5,579,517: Common name space for long and short filenames
  • 5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames (yes, again)
  • 6,621,746: Monitoring entropic conditions of a flash memory device as an indicator for invoking erasure operations
  • 6,826,762: Radio interface layer in a cell phone with a set of APIs having a hardware-independent proxy layer and a hardware-specific driver layer
  • 6,909,910: Method and system for managing changes to a contact database
  • 7,644,376: Flexible architecture for notifying applications of state changes
  • 5,664,133: Context sensitive menu system/menu behavior
  • 6,578,054: Method and system for supporting off-line mode of operation and synchronization using resource state information
  • 6,370,566: Generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device
Looking over a bunch of those, you have to think that Microsoft is praying that this case gets settled/decided before it possibly gets the Supreme Court to weigh in on more easily invalidating ridiculously bad patents. That last one is a favorite of mine. Just like we always make fun of patents that are basically "just add internet," this one certainly looks like "just add mobile." In the meantime, it's pretty amusing that Microsoft still won't just come out and sue Google over these patents. It seems to know that Google would actually hit back hard.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 3:53pm

    Oh Come on, Mike.

    Mike,

    Microsoft is here to help support and create a great developer community. Can't you appreciate this and understand that these patents help foster innovation in the wireless industry?

    Also, I have to say that I am very disappointed to find out that the "Raspberry Scent" that the phone has is indeed a hoax. You see, I suffer from anosmia which means I can't smell, so I had a co-worker smell it and I learned that it indeed doesn't have a smell. Also, from an insider's view, we've made a last minute creative decision to call the platform Windows Phone + ME, signifying that the phone is all you need!


    We'll take care of making sure it's patent friendly! Wouldn't you you want to develop on a platform that's safe? Do you want to open yourself up to that kind of risk?


    ___________________
    Sent from my Windows Phone + ME 7 (Build 302881)
    NOT REALLY Raspberry Scented
    Win a Windows 7 + ME Phone by clicking Here!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      LZ7, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 7:45pm

      Re: Oh Come on, Mike.

      Are you ... are you being serious? Just wondering, because of the jokes at the opening of your statement about Microsoft's patents advancing wireless technology. That's a lot of not true. These patents did what to enhance Android again? Also, how has MS built a "Developer Community" around Android? What part did Google play in this saga of theft?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jose_X, Oct 2nd, 2010 @ 10:13am

      Re: Oh Come on, Mike.

      >> Do you want to open yourself up to that kind of risk?

      Are you saying that Microsoft will sue those that don't use their software? Is Microsoft or major investors in Microsoft encouraging third parties with patents to sue open platforms like Linux? [I'm curious]

      >> Can't you appreciate this and understand that these patents help foster innovation in the wireless industry?

      I looked a bit over some of the patent claims, but I only came across claims on using a "computing system" to perform mental steps (algorithms). Computing systems that perform arbitrary mental steps is a very old concept and surely someone picked up a related patent on it at some point in time in the past half century or more. I'll presume the patent examiner made a mistake in granting this patent or else was not very clear on SCOTUS' views that patenting algorithms mixed in with what is absolutely not a novel invention (a computing system) is not worthy of a patent. This looks like a good example of the USPTO failing to recognize abstract patent claims.

      It's very possible I missed the key point that would lead to a legitimate patent grant. I read only a small fraction of the claims.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 3:59pm

    Micro$oft in recent years has become an infinite source of laughs for me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    coldbrew, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 4:27pm

    RE: Motorola was the orginal mobile company

    Masnick: Of all the coverage on this event, this is easily the most comprehensive, but none discuss that Motorola played a significant role in the development of lots of mobile technology (they shipped their first phone in 1983). I realize your point is that the whole thing is silly, but Motorola has quite a bit of IP in this area. I just ripped some text from a Motorola v. RIM suit from 2008 that I'll put in another comment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    coldbrew, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 4:30pm

    RE: Motorola vs. RIM (Feb. 2008)

    7. United States Patent No. 5,157,391, titled “APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR
    DISPLAYING A PLURALITY OF FUNCTION INDICATORS IN A SELECTIVE CALL
    RECEIVER” (“the ‘391 patent”), was duly and legally issued on October 20, 1992, to Inventor
    Randi F. Weitzen. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the
    ‘391 patent, including the right to sue and recover for past infringement thereof. A true and
    correct copy of the ‘391 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

    8. United States Patent No. 5,359,317, titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
    SELECTIVELY STORING A PORTION OF A RECEIVED MESSAGE IN A SELECTIVE
    CALL RECEIVER” (“the ‘317 patent”), was duly and legally issued on October 25, 1994, to
    Inventors Fernando A. Gomez and Mark T. Stair. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all
    right, title and interest in and to the ‘317 patent, including the right to sue and recover for past
    infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ‘317 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

    9. United States Patent No. 5,394,140, titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PREPREPROGRAMMED
    CALL-BACK-NUMBER-DETERMINED ALERT” (“the ‘140 patent”), was
    duly and legally issued on February 28, 1995, to Inventors Poh-T’in Wong, Allen J. Weidler and
    William J. Burke. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the
    ‘140 patent, including the right to sue for past infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of
    the ‘140 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

    10. United States Patent No. 5,612,682, titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
    CONTROLLING UTILIZATION OF A PROCESS ADDED TO A PORTABLE
    COMMUNICATION DEVICE” (“the ‘682 patent”), was duly and legally issued March 18,
    1997, to Inventors Michael J. DeLuca, George W. Smoot and Douglas R. Kraul. Plaintiff is theowner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘682 patent, including the right to
    sue for past infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ‘682 patent is attached hereto as
    Exhibit D.

    11. United States Patent No. 5,764,899, titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
    COMMUNICATING AN OPTIMIZED REPLY” (“the ‘899 patent”), was duly and legally
    issued on June 9, 1998, to Inventors Gene Eggleston, Mitch Hansen and Anthony Rzany.
    Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘899 patent,
    including the right to sue and recover for past infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of
    the ‘899 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

    12. United States Patent No. 5,771,353, titled “SYSTEM HAVING VIRTUAL SESSION
    MANAGER USED SESSIONLESS-ORIENTED PROTOCOL TO COMMUNICATE WITH
    USER DEVICE VIA WIRELESS CHANNEL AND SESSION-ORIENTED PROTOCOL TO
    COMMUNICATE WITH HOST SERVER” (“the ‘353 patent”), was duly and legally issued on June 23, 1998, to Inventors Gene Eggleston and Mitch Hansen. Plaintiff is the owner by
    assignment of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘353 patent, including the right to sue and
    recover for past infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ‘353 patent is attached
    hereto as Exhibit F.

    13. United States Patent No. 5,974,447, titled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR COUPLING
    A SELECTIVE CALL RECEIVER TO WIDELY DISTRIBUTED INFORMATION
    SOURCES” (“the ‘447 patent”), was duly and legally issued on October 26, 1999, to Inventors
    Gregory L. Cannon, David P. Kilp and Nick P. Lagen. Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of
    all right, title and interest in and to the ‘447 patent, including the right to sue and recover for past
    infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of the ‘447 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      e100, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 9:19pm

      Re: RE: Motorola vs. RIM (Feb. 2008)

      You make a good point.
      However you forget Microsoft makes SOFTWARE where motorola makes HARDWARE.

      See AT&T v Microsoft:
      http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1056

      Essentially Microsoft argued that the software they got from AT&T was just a "Blueprint" and until such time that the software and hardware come together AT&T's patent did not apply. Since Microsoft only supplied the software, and not the hardware Microsoft was not liable for infringing the patent.

      Motorola sells hardware + software, they are liable to patents.
      Microsoft sells only software, not liable against any patents Motorola may have.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jose_X, Oct 2nd, 2010 @ 11:12am

        Re: Re: RE: Motorola vs. RIM (Feb. 2008)

        Good point, generally, but Microsoft's patents are "really abstract" (see Bilski).

        Also, Microsoft can pay indirectly but perhaps heavily if the vendors of hardware that would use Microsoft software conclude that they can only get a license for some patent or other by not using Microsoft software or else by paying very high fees which ultimately will hit Microsoft in the pocket if Motorola's leverage proves to be strong and/or gets help from other vendors.

        I think Microsoft will offer Motorola a fairly easy way out the closer it appears they might get their patents tossed.

        With these large companies asking for the defense against bad patents to be streamlined and with "software patents" looking quite shaky of late, are we in the early stages of a wide-scale patent war among large vendors as they jockey for new positions in what is to become a new pecking order? In anticipation of this sort of war, should we also expect all of these high stock prices to deflate significantly over the next 5 years?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jose_X, Oct 2nd, 2010 @ 10:58am

      Re: RE: Motorola vs. RIM (Feb. 2008)

      >> 7. United States Patent No. 5,157,391

      Did Motorola attempt to get the government to restrict competition on these features/methods for 20 years or were they trying to prove that the USPTO can't help but to grant monopolies that stifle progress, hurt consumers, and would disappoint the SCOTUS?

      How many engineering minutes were wasted coming up with the "novel" and "non-obvious" idea that if you have a small number of buttons on a device that accepts messages, that it makes sense to limit the total number of instant functions and that these be some of the most basic features one does with a message? If they did a small user trial (even a straw poll among the engineers), they could probably home in quickly on a set of functions. I'm also curious if they sought a different patent where they adopted a different approach (of overloading buttons with multiple shift levels as happens with advanced calculators). Perhaps this patent was the fruit of engineers realizing they had better keep the interface simple for the typical user. 20 years of exclusivity for this eureka moment, huh? For bragging rights among the large (techy) vendors, I can understand them seeking a patent, but this is why the system is so bad. 20 years. How about simply an applause and a product that will make them money?

      I'm curious if the point of parent posting this is to point out that Motorola will want to settle with Microsoft so that they each keep their overpriced junk patent portfolio in tact? It is possible though that since Motorola at least claims devices that are more on the custom-made and non-standard side of the spectrum, that they would instead try their luck against Microsoft.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Oct 1st, 2010 @ 4:37pm

    Easy

    "5,758,352: Common name space for long and short filenames (yes, again)"

    I think we have a winner. Not only is it obvious (for a problem of MS' own making,) but *twice?*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 4:51pm

    FAT patents

    The worst part of these FAT patents is that the only reason everybody has to implement these... is for compatibility with Microsoft Windows (and not even modern MS Windows, but the now long dead DOS-based MS Windows, which cannot use NTFS natively).

    If this compatibility were not needed, there are many better alternatives that could be used. From what I have heard, both patents are about Windows 95's Long File Name on FAT32 - take a look at how it is implemented (Wikipedia should be enough) to see how much of a kludge it is (basically, it chops up the long name in several tiny parts, and put each one as a directory entry with several invalid flags set so very old versions of DOS and DOS-based low-level utilities will ignore them). FAT32 itself is not a good filesystem (it was good enough for floppy disks and small hard disk drives, but does not work well on today's multi-gigabyte disks).

    Of course, Microsoft is pushing a new and improved filesystem (exfat) to replace it. But while technically superior, it has much worse compatibility (only very recent versions of MS Windows, and only MS Windows, can read it), and of course it probably is also patented (though how one can patent a data format, which is on its core what filesystem is, is beyond me). Smart people who are on countries which still allow "software patents" should avoid touching it with a 3-meter pole.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 4:59pm

      Re: FAT patents

      And preemptively commenting on why I cannot comprehend how one can patent a filesystem: imagine you invent a filing system, where you have a tray with a index card for each card tray, listing which cards on it are empty and which are used, and decide on a fixed format and a series of rules for how to write on the cards. For instance, one of the cards could say "to get file 'My Accounts', see cards 42-45 on tray 13" on a specific format you invented. People who understand filesystems can easily complete the example.

      A filesystem is much like that, only with clusters of sectors (a fixed-size block of bytes) instead of cards. I completely fail to see how one could patent a paper-based filing system, and equivalently completely fail to see how one could patent a filesystem.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 5:33pm

    entropy in flash memory

    http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Kgq&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official &defl=en&q=define:Entropic&sa=X&ei=j3ymTPTxKMHflge57JAX&ved=0CBQQkAE

    like thats as absurd as it gets :
    Of, pertaining to, or as a consequence of entropy
    en.wiktionary.org/wiki/entropic

    entropy - information: (communication theory) a numerical measure of the uncertainty of an outcome; "the signal contained thousands of bits of information"

    code does not work like that there is no entropy in working software that is programmed properly.....

    What the hell is this patent truly about?
    It can't be about thermodynamics ....

    entropy - randomness: (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 5:34pm

    p.s. how do you patent a state of the universe?

    just adding to my above comment

    13billion year prior art?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 5:41pm

    hrm

    In computing, entropy is the randomness collected by an operating system or application for use in cryptography or other uses that require random data. ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(computing)

    random functions on computers hrm when was the first function?
    When was the first computer?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Nick (profile), Oct 1st, 2010 @ 6:09pm

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but obvious ideas aren't suposed to be patentable.
    From MS's blog post:
    " Indeed, our patents relate to key features that users have come to expect from every smartphone. The ability to send and receive email on-the-go has driven smartphone adoption. Nowadays, everyone expects to receive e-mail from multiple services in real time, to read it on their phones, and to reply or send new messages out – in continuous and seamless synchronization with their email services. "

    Common, expected from every smartphone, everyone... All words that, to me, impley that an adverage person in the field would think of these things.

    With the rapid pace of change in the IT industry, maybe patent the apply to Software, and computing in general should have shorter life spans. Patents last 20 years. In tech terms that's 10-20 generations! By the time a patent expires the industry will have completely changed. I'm all for giving inventers a head start in the market, but this is like saying no one else could make gas cars without paying ford since 1890.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 6:11pm

    LEAKED- More GREAT news about Windows 7+ME Feature Development!

    I just recieved the inside word from my PR manager that we just acquired a Provisional Patent # 5815715!

    Windows Phone+ME will have a "Bronx Cheer™" sound that automatically starts and loops as a background sound when you activate speakerphone!

    And Windows Phone+ME is the only platform that will have it! This is great because in addition to not being able to smell (see first comment), I'm also deaf. I also blind and lost my hands in Vietnam.

    In fact, I'm banging the keyboard with my elbow to send info about this cool feature while I wait for my wheelchair to charge so I can go home.

    Here's a Bronx Cheer™ for a great phone! When will Ballmer stop coming up with great ideas?

    ___________________
    Sent from my Windows Phone+ME (Build 302887 - With ZuneVirus AutoUpdate®)
    NOT REALLY Raspberry Scented
    Register to win a "Bronx Cheer™" by visiting here!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      LZ7, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 7:53pm

      Re: LEAKED- More GREAT news about Windows 7+ME Feature Development!

      Are you seriously just spamming this forum? You're ... WTF?!?! Are you trying to make MS look worse than they already do on this?

      on a side note, golly! I cant wait to buy a Windows Phone 7!

      Does it infringe on countless patents?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 1st, 2010 @ 6:30pm

    These patents are insignificant in the grand scheme of the MikePhone.

    Let's face it- the most important function of a phone is the ability to find unicorns. Why Microsoft hasn't figured this out yet is beyond me.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3z7Tw1K17A

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Oct 2nd, 2010 @ 9:35am

    RE: FAT patents (to Anonymous Coward, #6)

    Here is some obviously relevant prior art, usable under KSR v. Teleflex

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090330/1149514309.shtml#c352

    Reduced to essentials, Microsoft used the standard method of "spanning" a long, variable-length "record" over short, fixed-length "records," but of course, in the early 1990's, this was not familiar to a recent college graduate-- such as a patent examiner-- who had never experienced punch-card equipment or mainframe computers, and who, consequently, had no real understanding of the concept of a "record." At the crudest level, a "record" is a punch card, a rectangular paper card with twelve rows and eighty columns of locations where a hole is punched or not punched.

    As late as 1981-83, colleges were still using old "hand-me-down" computers for instruction, rather than cheap new computers. That began to change rather rapidly in 1984, as Moore's Law roared through, so I was just in time to get a type of experience which later generations did not get, that of doing early-1950's-style programming [on programmable calculators], and then early-1960's-style programming [on the IBM 1130], and then early-1970's-style programming [on the IBM 370/Amdahl mainframe], recapitulating history in the course of my own education.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Very Confused, Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 12:21am

    Re: Motorola vs. RIM (Feb. 2008)


    See http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1056

    Since Microsoft only supplied the software, and not the hardware Microsoft was not liable for infringing the patent.


    So the Supreme Court gave Microsoft handed a favorable judgement. Infringement occurs when disclosure by the third party is done willingly, but it still doesn't meet a standard of infringement or royalty collection unless the code is actually 1.) is copied in the US and 2.) in a runtime environment? Am I understanding this right?? Because it's revealing to the way they approach dealings with business partners.

    But, it's real amusing that Microsoft will even enforce it's IP in that way after a Supreme Court win like that. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems they should be suing end customers instead of Motorola.

    This makes me wonder why they are doing this. It's well known that Microsoft has become a proponent of sue-to-settle cross-licensing IP agreements. I wonder if Phone7 will infringe on the Droid's fonts and color schemes. Maybe Ballmer himself wants to use Droid's font library. Who can blame him, they are better. Microsoft uses this strategy often to allow "not-invented-here" to be implemented.

    I suppose this Supreme Court case was carefully worded and needed to ensure Microsoft's long term survival and trademark no-blame culture. Companies with No-Blame cultures often have trouble defining ethical responsibility, and may at times, be pursuaded more often to use selective enforcement.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Jay (profile), Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 1:51pm

    Why sue Google... you always go after the guys making the most money from the 'infringement'. They're the ones you'll probably get the biggest settlement from!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Doug, Oct 3rd, 2010 @ 3:44pm

    Can't sue Google

    I suspect that Microsoft is suing Motorola because Motorola is actually selling a product that uses the patented technology, while Google is not actually "selling" Android. Not to mention the fact that Motorola probably has more patents than Google in the mobile space, and Microsoft probably wants to cross-license those patents (this is where the value to to customer comes in -- cross-licensing means sharing ideas, which is generally a good thing).

    I think the world would be better if there were no patents on this kind of thing, but as long as there are patents on this kind of thing, Microsoft's behavior makes some sense to me. It's a mechanism of moving the situation from "symmetric threat of mutually assured destruction" to "symmetric non-aggression pact". Hope it works, and that the lawyers don't bleed off too much in the mean time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 4th, 2010 @ 3:48am

    I hope Motorola basically appoints Google as an amicus curiae; A friend of the court.

    And gets them to describe to MS how the are doing it wrong. Without getting involved, per se.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    TechnoMage (profile), Oct 4th, 2010 @ 3:59am

    Google buying the legal threat

    Could Google somehow buy the "threat" away from Motorola and have MS be suing Google instead (I know this would put Google at a disadvantage legally... having to pay up if they lose...), but I'd throw in 10$ if they would throw down and actually have Google have the chance to invalidate those patents

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Oct 4th, 2010 @ 7:50am

    We know one thing ...

    Here is what we know ... Almost every large company that can't compete and is going to fail in a specific market sues. The conclusion is Microsoft is is going to be out of the mobile market soon. This is the SCO lawsuits all over again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), Oct 4th, 2010 @ 12:52pm

    Overlords?

    Mike,

    Isn't Microsoft one of the companies that Ron J Riley or someone often accuses you of being a lackey?

    Their accusation is something like "The big companies hate patents because all invention is done by individual inventors, and thus, you are on the take from the big tech firms." No proof is presented, of course, and articles where you simply argue your consistent opinion, like this, are duly ignored.

    Where are those conspiracy guys in the comments here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    promotional, Oct 11th, 2010 @ 8:45am

    Hey ,I really enjoyed reading what you had to say.You have lots of good ideas.This is really a great stuff.Keep going.Thanks for sharing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Joe Restivo, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 6:43am

    1310-G Corton Drive

    Both companies are developing products that are very similar. It would take a team of lawyers, such as http://www.aminn.org to ever get an issue resolved like this.

    However, I do love the droid, and I think the competition just makes them work harder for cooler phones!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Gadget | Telephone Mobile, Nov 18th, 2011 @ 7:02am

    wow

    Microsoft is here to help support and create a great developer community. Can't you appreciate this and understand that these patents help foster innovation in the wireless industry?

    Also, I have to say that I am very disappointed to find out that the "Raspberry Scent" that the phone has is indeed a hoax. You see, I suffer from anosmia which means I can't smell, so I had a co-worker smell it and I learned that it indeed doesn't have a smell. Also, from an insider's view, we've made a last minute creative decision to call the platform Windows Phone + ME, signifying that the phone is all you need! iPod | iPhone | iPad Gadget | Telephone Mobile

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This