Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft To Charge Phone Makers a Licensing Fee

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the how-magnanimous-of-you dept.

Cellphones 225

angry tapir writes "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee, but in exchange vendors get at least one important benefit: protection from intellectual property worries. 'Microsoft indemnifies its Windows Phone 7 licensees against patent infringement claims,' the company said. 'We stand behind our product, and step up to our responsibility to clear the necessary IP rights.'" In related news, Windows Phone 7 will be exclusive to AT&T at launch, and it seems Microsoft is counting on Xbox Live integration to be the "hook" that gets people interested in the new devices.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You get what you pay for. (4, Informative)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#33761950)

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue. What Microsoft is offering here is a classic part of their business plan... if somebody comes up with a submarine patent they'll take the legal pain so their customers don't have to.

Remember the lesson of SCO and Darl McBride.... even though the claims had no legal merit, they still were messy enough that it was cheaper to pay the settlement price than fight them and win the case. When faced with such a problem, any sane business man will take the less expensive option even if it's not the one that's good for the world.

So, this license fee can be seen as an insurance policy against such patent claims that could bite the handset maker for a mistake the software writers made.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 years ago | (#33762070)

you have to pay the mortgage first, the second check you write is the insurance. Who cares if you have great insurance if you are hamstung with terrible software from microsoft that does not allow your business to make any money?

Re:You get what you pay for. (3, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 4 years ago | (#33762200)

Probably 90% of corporations out there making money are using Microsoft software.

On the desktop, perhaps (1, Informative)

Rix (54095) | about 4 years ago | (#33762286)

Maybe a few hobbling along on their anaemic server products.

No one takes their smartphone OS seriously.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762336)

Maybe a few hobbling along on their anaemic server products.

This might be the dumbest thing anyone has ever said.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (1)

DAldredge (2353) | about 4 years ago | (#33762340)

In what ways in Server 2008 R2 "anaemic"?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (4, Funny)

adonoman (624929) | about 4 years ago | (#33762640)

There's an almost complete lack of hemoglobin in it.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (1)

jank1887 (815982) | about 4 years ago | (#33762856)

almost?!?

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (2, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#33762908)

It is windows, the occasional virgin sacrifice is required to keep the system uptime at 5 nines.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (1)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 years ago | (#33763374)

No wonder so many virgin slashdotters choose Linux...

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (2, Funny)

adonoman (624929) | about 4 years ago | (#33763058)

At least the last computer I assembled has a bit, thanks to an excessively sharp case edge.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (1)

Rix (54095) | about 4 years ago | (#33763010)

How do you configure it, using the command line only?

Yes, you *can* use it as a server, but it's a huge pain in the ass.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (2, Informative)

adonoman (624929) | about 4 years ago | (#33763120)

Using Powershell. Windows 2008 Server Core barely even has a GUI - it's all command line and remote management.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (5, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 years ago | (#33762442)

No one takes their smartphone OS seriously.

I do. I seriously would never buy a phone with a Microsoft OS on it. Because I have a great, irrational fear (based on almost 20 years of Microsoft products) of something going horribly wrong or generally not being what I'd hoped.

For the same reason that I cringe when I see Ford commercials touting a Window experience in my car.

They have gotten better over the years, but there are certain kinds of consumer devices I'd rather not leave to Microsoft just yet.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (2, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 4 years ago | (#33762818)

I partly agree. I have an HD2, which uses WinMob 6.5. It's by no means perfect, but way more open than anything Apple (imagine ! drag-and-drop music/movies upload from any PC ! No need to use one specific media player/manager !), is reasonably stable and has the handful of apps I need (browser, media, ereader, RSS).

Winphone7 actually looks worse than 6.5, with Jobsian levels of user lockout and playpenning, and certainly Microsoftian levels of ergonomy and reliability. Talk about best of both worlds...

My bet is MS is once again shooting themselves in the foot by aping Apple instead of going after another market, namely users who actually want a hint of freedom, even at the cost of a smidgen of complexity.

Re:On the desktop, perhaps (1)

treeves (963993) | about 4 years ago | (#33763384)

My complaint with WinMo 6.5 is with the UI. You seem to have to use a stylus to do a lot of things.
I would have gone with an Android smartphone, but I have to use Lotus Notes (another choice I would not make myself) for email, and so far Lotus Notes doesn't work with Android.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#33762660)

The cell phone market is much more competitive. In such a market, you have to distinguish yourself from your competitors. While makers have some technical differences, why they like Android is the ability to configure it. MS has gone in the other direction giving makers less flexibility.

Re:You get what you pay for. (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 years ago | (#33762920)

which ones are making money using the microsoft mobile os? Interesting people are trying to deflect the discussion.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

digitig (1056110) | about 4 years ago | (#33763098)

I bet most of them are using some open-source, too.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

woboyle (1044168) | about 4 years ago | (#33763148)

And they could give their bottom lines a nice boost if they just stopped paying the Microsoft Tax and went with open source software. Just moving to OOo would add at least a couple hundred USD per year per workstation to the bottom line.

Re:You get what you pay for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33763376)

Just moving to OOo would add at least a couple hundred USD per year per workstation to the bottom line.

Where did you get that number? For a corporate licensed install of MS Office you don't pay anywhere NEAR a couple of hundred US dollars per year. Of course, since we run our entire business (it seems like) on Excel apps and macros, we could spend millions of dollars getting everything converted to OO and then paying some more people to write actual apps for the things that Excel does that OO doesn't do. All in all not so much the bargain that people who use OO at home would make it out to be.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 4 years ago | (#33762210)

Yeah, clearly no one makes any money using Microsoft software. That's why everyone ditched Microsoft and moved to Linux back in 1995, right?

Re:You get what you pay for. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762542)

Once upon a time, Microsoft was a major player in the smartphone OS market. But when something better came along (Android, iOS), the entire market jumped ship because they could easily do so. They couldn't do that with desktop Windows.

Now Microsoft's foothold in the mobile market is a fucking joke, even with this Windows Phone 7 stuff.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

jank1887 (815982) | about 4 years ago | (#33762930)

according to wikipedia, that myth didn't begin until 2000.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 4 years ago | (#33762372)

Who cares if you have great insurance if you are hamstung with terrible software from microsoft that does not allow your business to make any money?

The ultimate investment strategy from /. experts: buy stock only in those companies which run Linux!

Don't forget to get back to us in 2-3 years to tell the story of your success.

Re:You get what you pay for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33763216)

Who cares if you have great insurance if you are hamstung with terrible software from microsoft that does not allow your business to make any money?

The ultimate investment strategy from /. experts: buy stock only in those companies which run Linux!

Don't forget to get back to us in 2-3 years to tell the story of your success.

A Linux portfolio would be nearly indistinguishable from a generic tech portfolio. Snarkiness aside, you should do reasonably well in the market with a spread of competent tech companies over the next 3 years.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 4 years ago | (#33763272)

A Linux portfolio would be nearly indistinguishable from a generic tech portfolio

The way GGP put it, any company that uses Windows in any capacity whatsoever is already suspect. So we aren't just talking about buying into "companies that use Linux somewhere" here (heck, under that rule, you'd end up buying MSFT!), but rather "companies which use Linux exclusively".

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

BlueStraggler (765543) | about 4 years ago | (#33763460)

Like Google? Amazon? Or every other successful company of the last 10-15 years?

Or did you mean companies that *sell* Linux, which obviously you should not expect killer profits from.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 4 years ago | (#33762092)

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue.

Yes, because Microsoft came to dominate its industry by paying out on lawsuits. Those deep pockets are more likely to go for paying for lawyers to fight your lawsuit.

As for protection from IP claims, this is the textbook definition of FUD. And it's a lie. Weren't customers of MS subject to lawsuits a few years ago based on IP in SQL Server?

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

getNewNickName (980625) | about 4 years ago | (#33762100)

How does that protect you from patent trolls who force you to stop sales of your handset until the patent dispute is resolved with MS? Never underestimate the deviousness of patent trolls to cause maximum pain and suffering for their own profit.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#33762176)

Microsoft will provide their army of lawyers to argue against that injunction. Sure, it's not a foolproof solution, but it's the best one money can buy.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | about 4 years ago | (#33762518)

And RedHat doesn't have legal representation? I'm sure if a patent troll started hammering RedHat, other people in the supply chain whose futures are tied to the OS will join the fray, such as IBM.

Personally, I'd worry about other factors such as if the OS and platform are up to the task at hand. This generally is far more important than worrying about patent trolls as the primary reason to choose an application stack.

Eheh, so how often has this happened? (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 4 years ago | (#33762272)

This argument keeps coming up. That somehow, when you pay MS for their "software" you get Bill Gates at your beg and call, ready to deliver an emergency patch at your request.

For normal business, this is far from the case. MS doesn't even know you exist, HP or Dell is your point of contact. You would have to buy MS software worth millions of dollars to get them to notice you and even then, support is far from snappy. With open source I have had routine contact with the lead developers over the years.

And as for sane business men just buying off SCO and the like. Eh, no. That is exactly what did NOT happen. A hint to this might have been that SCO went bankrupt. There were a handful of payoffs and they could all be traced back to MS backing. And even that wasn't enough.

A SANE business man knows that if you start paying of left and right you will soon be out of business.

In fact a sane business man will look at this license and stay the FUCK away from it unless he was paying payed to get close to it. Why? Because apparantly, MS is willing to SUE people who it thinks don't pay it enough. So if next year you decide to dumb MS as your tech partner, will they then turn around and sue?

Go ahead, come into my house. I promise you that if you come into my house, I won't kill you... why are you running away?

Re:Eheh, so how often has this happened? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762710)

"beck and call"

However... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 4 years ago | (#33762314)

You missed the part where every major WinMo manufacturer of significance already ships more Linux based (Android) phones. If they were that desperate for indemnification, they would have avoided Android completely rather than releasing on both platforms.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1, Interesting)

poetmatt (793785) | about 4 years ago | (#33762414)

bwahahahaha what a troll. What a deliberate, obvious troll. You should have used republican talking points.

SCO/Darl Mcbride never won any case. Nobody has settled with SCO either, in fact SCO is in bankruptcy. Why again? Because of all that stuff they "owned"? Is that where the "people will settle" BS comes from? Because patent trolls rarely win, as recent studies have shown. [techdirt.com] So there is a reason to not settle: you can save more money by going through the courts, because the more you cost the competitor (microsoft), the less they're going to be willing to go after you again.

Have a patent of theirs invalidated and they can't go after anyone else for it either. expose the company as a subsidiary of microsoft. Either of these are retaliatory options.

So lets get to #2, the only reason anyone has any issues of "idenmnity" is because Microsoft is suing their competitors through subsidiaries. However, there is still a second important factor: do you have to pay anything to create your own implementation of android? No. Do you have to pay for indemnification? no.

what you're stating is almost along the same lines as trying to claim x264 is free, which might be true if people didn't look for more information.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about 4 years ago | (#33762424)

I haven't seen any patent lawsuits in recent memory for smartphone software.

I have seen lots of patent lawsuits in recent memory for smartphone hardware. And somehow, I don't see Microsoft coming to your rescue when Apple sues you for abusing a touch screen patent, or NTP sues you because you use the wrong chip in you phone.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 4 years ago | (#33763218)

I haven't seen any patent lawsuits in recent memory for smartphone software.

Less than a year is beyond recent memory? Apple v. HTC [slashdot.org]

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | about 4 years ago | (#33763372)

I guess I thought that whole lawsuit was mostly about the hardware of capacitive touchscreens- I didn't realize there were like 13 patents listed in the lawsuit.

And while many were hardware patents, you are right in that some were entirely software.

Re:You get what you pay for. (2, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | about 4 years ago | (#33762606)

So, this license fee can be seen as an insurance policy against such patent claims that could bite the handset maker for a mistake the software writers made.

In other words: "Nice handset you got there, it would be a shame if it burnt down..."

Re:You get what you pay for. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762668)

Microsoft's EULA prevents suits against them. No user has ever sued MS despite their cruddy OS costing industry billions each year fighting virii, trojans and malware. Let's stop the silly myth PHBs chose MS because they think they can sue them. The reality is simpler. MS court the execs that make the final call.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

Sinisterduck66 (1905252) | about 4 years ago | (#33762988)

MS court the execs that make the final call.

Much like Cisco and all other big players. Its just the way of the world. Fight for change if you want I wish anyone who does so luck.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 4 years ago | (#33762670)

the main reason big business loves MS is lack of choice. Business loves having no choice, ie no risk. My brother works in IT for a very large firm, and was recently on a kinda tricky remoting/virtualization project. His main wish ? that "MS had decimated the market, so that I wouldn't have to choose something".

big business would not sue MS, their lawyers know it''s a lost cause. they may sue their consultants (including MS if MS is doing the consulting), but not the hardware/software suppliers.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 4 years ago | (#33762740)

"One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue. "

That cannot possibly be one of the reasons, since your claim is ridiculous and untrue. The bigger businesses that tolerate Microsoft do so because they recognize that they have long since fallen victim to lock-in, and even they are trying their best to make the transition. Smaller businesses like Microsoft, but only because they think their only other choice is Apple. I doubt you can show me a business that is not run by complete morons where they love Microsoft. Many, Many, Many big businesses far prefer Linux to Windows, and any claim to the contrary is a bald faced lie.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

SuseLover (996311) | about 4 years ago | (#33762982)

Big business not interested in Linux??

At my current employer (and my previous employer), Linux servers now outnumber Windows systems and is growing at MS expense. Things couldn't be running smoother.

I'd say there's plenty of interest, we're just waiting for more apps available to the platform.

Re:You get what you pay for. (1)

DrXym (126579) | about 4 years ago | (#33763172)

One of the reasons why big business loves Windows and isn't that interested in Linux other than maybe Red Hat is because if things go horribly wrong, there's somebody with deep pockets to sue. What Microsoft is offering here is a classic part of their business plan... if somebody comes up with a submarine patent they'll take the legal pain so their customers don't have to.

Are you saying Google, HP, Nokia or Apple who all have their own phone operating systems don't have deep pockets? In two cases the Linux kernel is powering the OS and in another it's a BSD variant.

extortion fee (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | about 4 years ago | (#33763208)

and the sco thing was fought and pushed them into bankruptcy for trying to mess with open source. THERE is your lesson and the other one being dont lie that you own something you clearly do not. AKA copyrights to unix....

finally! (1)

asiansteev (991271) | about 4 years ago | (#33761964)

without concern for infringing on intellectual properties, i can finally create that simpsons soundboard app.

Re:finally! (1)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#33761994)

Sorry. The protection is against mistakes Microsoft makes, not your own legal stupidity.

Re:finally! (2, Funny)

Comboman (895500) | about 4 years ago | (#33763454)

Doh!

MOTHERFUCKER!!! (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33761980)

AT&T again? After my cell contract is up, I'm done with cellphones.

This is nothing new (5, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33762014)

Microsoft has never not charged a license fee. It's pretty steep too.

But they keep pushing this indemnification clause as if it provides some kind of true advantage. It does not. First, it only covers the technology in the OS which MS would necessarily have to protect itself from anyway. Second, if a handset maker were to get sued and lose, they would in turn sue MS for damages. And finally, no one has successfully sued a handset maker for infringed patents in operating systems like Linux.

What this tells me is that they haven't changed their selling strategy one bit, and they haven't got the slightest idea how to change it. Whoever is in charge of their mobile division needs to be replaced. They have a technology that is late to the game and a selling strategy that is worthless to anyone with any experience with other operating systems.

Re:This is nothing new (2, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#33762474)

MS is trying to go after their true competitor in the space which is Android. While everyone talks about Apple being their biggest threat, it's really Android because Microsoft's partners and former partners might choose a free and configurable OS over their licensed and increasingly restrictive one. Also considering how MS has screwed over their partners in recent years, some of them might be wary to stay in a partnership with MS. If more and more partners abandon the Windows Mobile framework, there isn't a lot that MS can do except develop their own hardware. Considering their recent history with hardware design, that can't look good. The only success in MS recent history (Xbox, Zune, Kin) has been Xbox but also at the same time it has been unprofitable.

Re:This is nothing new (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 4 years ago | (#33762800)

For of it's faults the MS does a decent job of providing the tools to make a platform anyone can write for, linux does too, and in the mobile space that's going to become more an more an issue. Too much porn on phones and someone is going to step in to regulate business (and apple has done a good job trying to keep under the radar here) but eventually the restrictive nature of apples store should be trumped by a more open Windows/Android set of stores. Those two can compete on who makes the better tools, hardware, UI etc. But I don't see Apple as a long term competitor to MS in the phone business if MS plays it's cards right. Ultimately it's the same problem as the PC world, for all it's faults MS doesn't care if you use a $7000 or $700 computer, it tries to give developers as much access to the hardware as it can either way, and users (and developers) can manage their own application specific requirements. If I really want a smartphone that doesn't have a camera, MS (and android) will have operating systems for one, but apple doesn't. If I want to spend 7000 bucks on a cell phone that has internals worth that much, apple won't sell it to me, but MS and Google will, and that gives them, IMO a much better market in future as people stratify much more on what they want.

The Nokida Vertu series is sort of along those lines, but a bit too much diamond encrusting and not enough dual socket dual core internals sort of product for my taste.

Re:This is nothing new (1)

blind biker (1066130) | about 4 years ago | (#33762708)

Microsoft has never not charged a license fee.

Almost true, but not completely: when Bill G. asked from Jack Tramiel (of Commodore), for a per-unit royalty fee, he was told to get bent (not necessarily with those words). A few days later Bill G accepted the lump sum and that was that.

Re:This is nothing new (1)

canajin56 (660655) | about 4 years ago | (#33763370)

And finally, no one has successfully sued a handset maker for infringed patents in operating systems like Linux.

If you read TFA, Microsoft has been threatening Android makers, saying Android, being Linux, violates Microsoft patents, and telling them they need to buy licenses to MS patents or their customers will be sued. HTC has already folded for an undisclosed retroactive royalty on all of their Android phones. Verizon forces users to use Bing by forcefully blocking Google and Yahoo on their Samsung Android phones, so they might have taken matters into their own hands after Samsung refused to pay MS protection money. Microsoft, by talking up their indemnity, is making a not so subtle threat "You are safe with us. If you make an Android phone, we WILL sue your customers individually, not just you. You will be ruined".

Indemnification already offered on Linux (5, Informative)

PlanetX 00 (623339) | about 4 years ago | (#33762016)

A quick search revealed that at least one embedded Linux vendor offers this too without per-phone royalties:

"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."

Just more FUD IMHO

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#33762118)

In Microsoft's bank accounts we trust.... and just who is MontaVista?

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux (1)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about 4 years ago | (#33762406)

I'm sure there were people who said the same thing about investing with big banks rather than smaller credit unions a couple years ago...

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about 4 years ago | (#33762952)

If you believe Microsoft doesn't have a backdoor in that protection clause, you haven't seen them in court.

Microsoft isn't going to stand up for you or me or anyone else. They'll drop you like they dropped the PlaysForSure suckers.

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33762148)

Montavista tools are also extremely expensive and restrictive, well beyond what MS licenses cost. As sales volume increases, this gap may invert, though.

So the decision is between low startup costs but high fixed costs or high startup costs and no fixed costs. For a low volume manufacturer, the MS license really isn't that bad.

Of course, we're no longer talking about Windows Mobile. Montavista's software is equivalent to WinCE.

Re:Indemnification already offered on Linux (1)

Grond (15515) | about 4 years ago | (#33763158)

"Meanwhile, MontaVista added that it protects its customers from technical and legal risks through warranties on all editions of MontaVista Linux and indemnification against claims involving the code it creates and delivers."

You're comparing apples and oranges. As best I can tell, MontaVista's indemnification only extends as far as GPL disputes in which MontaVista is at fault, not software patent claims or even GPL disputes in which an upstream contributor screwed up. From this page [mvista.com] :

Legal risk - reduces legal risk by providing indemnification from open source licensing issues
...
Reduce legal risk - MontaVista indemnifies all active subscribers. This means that in the case of a GPL dispute where MontaVista is at fault, then MontaVista and not the MontaVista licensee, will bear the legal and financial burden.

Microsoft is offering a lot more than MontaVista. GPL disputes are rare; patent suits or the threat thereof are comparatively common (~3000 suits per year, although only a fraction of those are software-related).

in other words, microsoft is losing the war (4, Insightful)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 years ago | (#33762026)

and charging a fee is grasping at a branch on the way down.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | about 4 years ago | (#33762056)

Yep. That damn Windows desktop license fee will surely lead to Linux on the desktop right about... uh, okay, give it time.. uh, keep waiting. It'll finally be this year..... uhm.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 4 years ago | (#33762098)

maybe you missed the part that this is about microsoft moble os.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (1)

drodal (1285636) | about 4 years ago | (#33762510)

yeah, right, have you noticed that apple computer (they make mobile devices, don't they) has passed Microsoft in both Stock value and Gross revenues.....

So you're right, it was this year.....

you probably bought a zune, didn't you.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (1)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | about 4 years ago | (#33762896)

Not really a fair comparison. You are comparing a hardware company with a software company.

Maybe combine MSFT + DELL and compare that with Apple.

Microsoft charging a license fee for their new mobile OS is actually a bit surprising to me. I was actually expecting them to subside handset makers who chose their OS.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 4 years ago | (#33762446)

Considering android with Google is not free I doubt it's an issue.

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 years ago | (#33762614)

almost every iPhone and Android device sold you pay the Microsoft tax. it's called activesync. just like the old DOS days

Re:in other words, microsoft is losing the war (1)

icegreentea (974342) | about 4 years ago | (#33763342)

You are aware that Android also "kinda" has a licensing fee? The Google app stack (including the Marketplace) is only accessible if you pay Google and extend a branch for them as they keep fall- wait, what?

AT&T exclusive? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | about 4 years ago | (#33762064)

Great. Now I don't even have to consider Windows Phone 7 based on its merits against android devices.

AT&T is crap, and they already have IPhone locked in.

Who in their right mind at Microsoft thinks this is a good idea?

Re:AT&T exclusive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762368)

It's part of their brilliant marketing strategy based on the idea that as Apple have been succesful, that therefore if they just do their best to copy Apple then they must be succesful too. It's a bit pathetic really.

Re:AT&T exclusive? (1)

confused one (671304) | about 4 years ago | (#33762626)

I'm confused by this as well... So the release is initially with GSM radios and one of their manufacturer's is HTC. Why not include T-Mobile in the release?

Message to Microsoft: I feel left out. I was looking forward to the release, to update my ageing WM 6.1 phone and maybe try porting some of my code. If you think I'll change network, to AT&T, just to buy that Windows Phone 7 device, you've lost your mind.

Re:AT&T exclusive? (1)

whoop (194) | about 4 years ago | (#33762764)

Now we see why AT&T was making a Google-unbranded Android phone. They had the bright idea to not just make Bing (or was it Yahoo?) the default search engine, but then to lock any way to change it as well. Double-fun!

Re:AT&T exclusive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762996)

Exactly, if i could tolerate AT&T I already would have bought an iphone!

So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33762078)

...demands $1000 per phone and a Federal judge says she will start issuing permanent injunctions in 30 days Microsoft will pay?

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762222)

They will first get a stay from the superior court if that is not possible, they will buy the company or the Judge. Or the US Govt. will invalidate that Patent for MS. So you think some crap company can easily dictate what ever the price they want and established company will sit around and let it happen. It is in best interest for the company to negotiate and make a deal and get whatever they could. The great EUs and USAs couldn't do anything for MS's blatant illegal practices.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33762232)

What it means is that Microsoft will fight the legal battle for the OEM, and if the code is found to be infringing MS will replace that code to remove the patent dependency.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 4 years ago | (#33762732)

...if the code is found to be infringing MS will replace that code to remove the patent dependency.

Patents don't apply to code. They apply to inventions. They'd have to remove the functionality.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | about 4 years ago | (#33763314)

In other words, they would replace the code so that it would not have a dependency on the patent. Which is what I said.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

jank1887 (815982) | about 4 years ago | (#33763032)

yeah, remember that 'click to activate this control' crap? thats the type of fix you'll pay for.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

AusIV (950840) | about 4 years ago | (#33762832)

That was my thought. Microsoft can't very well indemnify against injunctive relief. If Windows mobile violates a patent, and the patent owner is granted an injunction, the manufacturers would still find themselves unable to ship phones with the OS.

Re:So when somone with a valid patent... (1)

Nikker (749551) | about 4 years ago | (#33762958)

If a company the size of MS is going to pull a move like this they will already have their bases covered. A major part of their business is not only writing software but filing and buying patents, this is the reason MS hasn't had lawsuits against them for their OS's. If a patent troll had anything on them they would be all over them as we speak cause I can guarantee they would be able to get more out of them then RIM and all the other combined could pony up. Companies that size look at patents the same way most look at sports cards they know which ones are valuable and which ones will be valuable in time, the only thing they think about is what will you accept in trade or is their anything they can use to make you give it up. I predict to back up the value of their claim you will start to see lawsuit after lawsuit as frivolous as it may seem pop up in the near future against everyone and anyone with anything that resembles a mobile phone right down to the classic cans and string. You heard it here first people.

A leopard never changes its spots (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 years ago | (#33762160)

First MS hints that Linux [slashdot.org] infringes on patents. [theinquirer.net] . Then it says it loves Open Source [networkworld.com] . Now it levels a thinly veiled patent threat against open source Android. Translation: MS loves open source as long as it doesn't compete with them. All we are missing is the horse's head.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 years ago | (#33763168)

Patent threats (no matter how subtle) are pretty much all they have left. They've already indicated that their product won't be able to compete on merit. Sure, they've got gimmicks and branding (Zune and XBox), but there's nothing backing those up anytime soon (Zune is just a fancy name for media player, and I sincerely doubt that XBox Live has nearly as many playable-on-the-phone games as Android and iPhone has at this time).

Long story short, Microsoft is in the hole insofar as mobile goes, it's their own damned fault (they've had at least 7 frickin' years of lead time), and they're desperately casting about for anything and everything to remain relevant.

Re:A leopard never changes its spots (2, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | about 4 years ago | (#33763388)

You're misplacing your anger. Microsoft's not the one that sued HTC for patent infringement over Android.

Subtext (1)

TheSpoom (715771) | about 4 years ago | (#33762360)

We bet the other mobile OSes violate some of our patents. Our OS is the only way to be sure you're not in violation.

Wow, just wow. (1)

rsborg (111459) | about 4 years ago | (#33762486)

Android is free, and companies like RIM probably will license for less... so what benefit does Microsoft have in terms of actual technology? Probably little to none.

So they decide they're going to go patent-troll [enterprise...etoday.com] on manufacturers like HTC who produce both WinMo and Android phones, claiming the Android infringes on their IP... notice they didn't do this with any other manufacturer like Motorola, just HTC (who created the Nexus One). Funny that.

I see this working out really well for them (not).

and now, a word from SCOX : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762548)

Don't forget your $699 licensing fee, you cocksmoking teabaggers!

google charges for android as well (1)

alen (225700) | about 4 years ago | (#33762578)

the android OS code is free to use, but to put google apps on a phone you have to pay $15 to google. or something close to that. in return google shares advertising revenue from the handsets you license. apparently they can keep track or revenue for each android device.

Is everyone forgetting HTC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762618)

After all, it got sued by Apple over, and ended up licensing Microsoft patents for, using Android, an OS put out by Google, in some of its phones. Patent trolls are one problem, Apple is something else entirely. I think handset manufacturers would like having Microsoft at their back when (if ever) Apple comes a-knocking.

No Xbox-Live (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762680)

There will be no Xbox-Live in Sweden on WP7

Interdepartmental fees? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#33762790)

I bet the iOS team charges the iPhone team interdepartmentally.

Re:Interdepartmental fees? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762900)

"Male peacocks are more colorful than their female counterpart."

Just as relevant, twice as informative.

Re:Interdepartmental fees? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 4 years ago | (#33763328)

"Male peacocks are more colorful than their female counterpart."
Just as relevant, twice as informative.

From TFS: "Microsoft may be one of the only remaining mobile operating-system providers that charges handset makers a licensing fee"
I'd say that talking about mobile phone operating system license fees is more relevant than discussions of plumage.

Windows Phone 7 will be exclusive to AT&T (1)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about 4 years ago | (#33762874)

Oh noes! I wanted so bad to enjoy their ultra fast network here in NYC...

Protection (1, Insightful)

jIyajbe (662197) | about 4 years ago | (#33762932)

"Give us money, and we'll make sure you don't get sued."

Isn't there a legal phrase for that?

Read between the lines (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | about 4 years ago | (#33762968)

This is a signal that if WinCE 7 (or whatever) doesn't sell well, they're going to go after Android and iPhone handsets with patent claims. Switch to WinCE 7, or something bad might happen to your platform.

GREEDY BASTARDS !! Go on Tour, Sell T-shirts, or (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33762976)

Do something like ad-supported (Google), business leaks (RIM), or total control of the user (Nazipple). This charge-a-fee ifor something like this only shows how greedy those bastards are !!

Extortion (2, Insightful)

Hairy1 (180056) | about 4 years ago | (#33763224)

Thats nice software you have there. It would be a pity if something were to 'appen to it.

After examining the recent patent litigation it seems that Microsoft is the target of phone patents already, and another patent troll is not attacking Microsoft because they are owned by the co-founder of the company.Basically what they are saying is that you should use Windows ONLY because of patent protection. Innovation be damned, what matters is how many patents you and your allies have to throttle the competition. Gates was right; if software patents had been in common use when Microsoft started he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?