×

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!

Motorola To Collect Royalties For Android

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the everybody-wants-a-piece dept.

Android 176

tlhIngan writes "It looks like Motorola wants to join in on the Android patent licensing fun enjoyed by Microsoft and others. (Yes, the same Motorola that makes Android phones.) Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha has stated they plan to collect licensing royalties from other Android manufacturers. Given Motorola's involvement in the mobile industry, they certainly do have the portfolio to go with it. It's interesting times ahead for Android."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

176 comments

They were played (0, Troll)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078384)

Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android. Companies stupidly believed the whole free hype and are only now starting to realize that they would actually need to pay something for Android. When you license a mobile OS from other provides, for example from Nokia or Microsoft, all the relevant patents to the OS are included within the deal, the costs are known upfront and it's just simpler. They can only blame themself for not seeing thru the Google marketing.

Re:They were played (5, Insightful)

kdart (574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078410)

Android is based on Linux and other open-source software. Google also open-sourced most of their own contributions under an Apache license. I don't see that as evil. Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android. The patent infringement allegations have not been proven. Android is just simply better but the established players can't deal with that.

Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.

Re:They were played (-1, Offtopic)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078442)

Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078476)

By definition, I think, Android can only infringe software patents.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078596)

First RTFM, it's not about mobile hardware patents. Second, patents are a stupid idea in general even in the case you mention. I'll grant you it's better than software patents and it made some sense in 1800 when everything moved at a snails pace to lock in innovation profits but today they're a blight on the system. They provide artificial barriers to entry and innovation rather than rewarding innovation. They delay R&D until it's feasible to get a profitable patent and they allow large established players to sue small innovators out of existence when they were originally meant to help the small guy make a profit before the big guy could come in and use his scale to copy and out market the small guy. As things have sped up it has only gotten worse. Software patents are completely stupid, inane, and the worst example of them but all patents should probably be ditched. The idea that the idea is worth more than the implementation is stupid. You don't book profits on the idea (or you shouldn't...i guess with patents you do). It requires both the idea and the execution.

Re:They were played (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078612)

Precisely!! Those companies innovated once upon a time and they spent billions, BILLIONS! Therefore, they need to be paid now and forever for products made by other companies that compete with their own products (which btw are not doing so great). It's only fair after all. You write software, I write software, we write similar software, you wrote something before I did, ergo I owe you money for my work. Bulletproof logic.

Re:They were played (0)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078642)

They aren't paid forever, patents last for 20 years.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078882)

Clearly, Slashdot was not already more than familiar with the meaning of "forever" in that context. Thank you, Captain Obvious, for once again you have saved us all!!

Re:They were played (2)

kdart (574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078616)

Most of the value of a Google branded Android phone comes from it being connected to the Internet, just like any PC, only smaller. The actual phone part they don't even make (and it runs in a separate, isolated CPU). Most of what Android is is an application stack that is not very different from desktop applications. I really don't see how some old phone related patents can apply to that. Now the GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc. implementations do have patents associated with them, but those would rightly be paid by the phone manufacturers. These manufacturers get the application stack side for free to enhance the value of their phones. They also modify it as they see fit, generally making it worse. So Google would like the user experience to be better, so they impose certain restrictions regarding app store access if the OS is drastically modified. What is wrong with that?

Re:They were played (0)

Maury Markowitz (452832) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078744)

> Now the GSM, CDMA, 3G, 4G, etc. implementations do have patents associated with them,
> but those would rightly be paid by the phone manufacturers

Exactly. Motorola is licensing their phone patents to phone makers.

> just like any PC, only smaller

Except for the fact that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s. Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it. When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.

Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.

I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it. If they want to give it away for free, like the thousands of articles I've written on the Wikipedia, so be it. But if they choose to license it for money, that's their prerogative too.

Maury

Re:They were played (3, Interesting)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079060)

I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.

The patent system was not designed to stop people copying ideas, it was to stop people copying implementations of ideas.

In software, copyright law already provides that.

There are too many people in the world to give a monopoly to a single person on an idea. There is likely not a single idea you will ever have that someone, somewhere has not thought of before you.

Re:They were played (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079064)

Except for the fact

Citation needed.

that Apple developed many of the technologies used in Android. For instance, I recall "data detectors" being discussed at WWDC in the mid 1990s.

*cough* just after Apple's ex-Nokia staff built the PenMac *cough*

Given the state of development at the time, I would guestimate that they spent millions developing it.

Does Apple pay Xerox a royalty for a GUI? No. Did Apple invent touch screens?? Do you know why Apple's legal department canned the PenMac?

When finally introduced in the iPhone they represented a tremendous advance in usability terms.

Ah those famous wikipedia "opinion" standards - "tremendous" advance in "usability". Do you mean they made doing "things" cooler? Perhaps you meant more efficiently? No? Did the iPhone make using mobile phones simpler - or quicker?

Google simply copied this UI for Android. I don't blame them, as Apple set a bar they had to meet. But as Apple already had a patent and was using it in a shipping product, they must have known they were in violation.

That is your "belief" - it's certainly not a fact.

I believe that if someone spent money developing an idea, they should get to say what people do with it.

Some people believe they are Napoleon - try not to confuse facts with beliefs.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079112)

I am neutral to the mobile wars but I must note that Google have a history of deliberately ignoring patents.

Re:They were played (1)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079190)

If you wish to make a mobile product you have two choices, you can either pay licenses for all the broad and obvious ideas that are patented in this field thus making it impossible to make a profit or you can ignore the patents and fight in court against them.

Re:They were played (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079388)

Or as a consumer, you can vote with your dollars. All my previous cellphones were Motorola. Last week I picked up an LG.

Re:They were played (1)

myurr (468709) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079508)

Unfortunately if you boycot the bad guys they'll just waive their falling sales numbers as proof that their 'intellectual property' is being stolen. This will be followed by more lawsuits to 'redress the balance' and lobbying for greater protectionism in law. It is regrettable that the lawmakers across most of the 1st world seem to be far too self serving to work out what is really best for the population as a whole and come up with a balanced approach to IP.

Re:They were played (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078620)

There's a distinction between patents for hardware and methodology and patents for software. IMHO the software patents should all be invalidated and the tech sector would almost immediately improve. Much of software could still be protected under the copyright and trade secret systems, but this constant legal maneuvering between the major players and their attorneys would be ended. Think of the money saved from that alone.

Re:They were played (5, Insightful)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078706)

Actually, mobile phone patents are one area where the patents indeed are very specific. Most of the oldest companies in the industry (Nokia especially) had to do significant amount of R&D to get the whole industry to where it's now. It's far from the likes of software patents - mobile phone patents are deserved and the companies that have them have spend billions to develop the technology. It's only fair that someone who wants to profit from that research pays some of the costs via patent licenses.

Patents for manufacturing processes are one thing (and I support them), patents for use of language (and ideas) are the tools of bandits. If Nokia wants to double dip and charge people who use their phone and charge people who don't use *their* phones or *their* components - then I'll call thuggery. But we're not talking about manufacturing processes with Nokia or Motorola - it's "idea" patents - which is banditry practised by big players over small players (bullying) - and ultimately bad for Business (shitting in the water supply). When Nokia's patents are for software that pays a royalty to the people and companies that wrote the code libraries, or compiler they where build with - and a royalty to every language they were based on - including the English language (why doesn't anyone think of Shakespeare's children?) then I 'll indulge you in your bullshit justifications. Until then I'll call them what they are - bullshit.

Your justifications smack of the sort of servile paganism that believes if they worship and pay tribute with words to the powers that be - then they too will share in those powers. It doesn't work with worshipping football teams or "stars" either. Of course you may hold large blocks of shares with one of those companies in which case you are protecting your interests and I unreservedly retract the accusation that you are no better than the cock-sucking thieving liars, thugs and bullies you defend.

P.S. Welcome to Slashdot. Today you're the new guy.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078872)

+1 to this. The anti-patent crowd on slashdot doesn't realize that companies don't invest billions of shareholder funds for the 'greater good', they are legally required to act in the interest of their shareholders. That is, make money. Google is no exception, they and their shareholders just rightfully believe Android being free is the correct business model for them.

Re:They were played (2)

imjustmatthew (1164609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078578)

Google's biggest mistake was using the Java language. That has always been a legal time bomb, since it was never made an open standard.

True, since Oracle is the only company targeting Google specifically

Now the patent trolls are going after them with overly broad patents (yet another indication of the broken patent system), primarily due to the success of Android.

I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.

Re:They were played (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078764)

I don't think they're targeting Android so much as other phone manufacturers. I think we'll see that most of Motorola's patents relate to phone hardware - they really haven't done much in the phone software space. They're talking about doing more of this to help make their phones stand out compared to other Android phones - either by driving up competitor's prices or forcing them to drop features. This is actually a fairly reasonable use of the patent system since Motorola actually makes phones using their patents - it isn't "trolling" as we usually discuss it here.

No - it's just double dipping. The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola. Motorola now sells the same components on the civilian market (as the restriction period has expired). They made a profit the first time around, the second time around they had zero development costs and they charged less for the hardware - on which they made a profit, now they're charging again. Shitting in the water supply.

Try using the same argument to defend Northrop if your model manufacturer has to pay them a patent fee for your toy helicopter. Fortunately Northrop only patented manufacturing processes. Things may have changed now.

If you still think your ideas are sound, go ask the inventor of graphene didn't patent it (or things that can be made with it) HINT: he had a chat to one of the Motorola lawyers.

Re:They were played (1)

dtmos (447842) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079084)

The US military paid Motorola's initial hardware development costs, at absolutely no risk to Motorola.

That's a pretty unusual idea. Care to cite where you got it? Motorola sold its government business back in 2001 [wikipedia.org]. What ten-year-old phone hardware components are being used today?

Re:They were played (1)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078422)

Its because things were too simple so the companies decided to complicate things.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078514)

oops. undoing an accidental upmod

Re:They were played (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078450)

What tells you Microsoft has all the patents? Doesn't even look like Apple can protect app developers who use their APIs. Sorry but HTC/Motorola/Samsung/LG knew full well that patents could be levied. It's just the name of the game and they are good at it, Motorola can try to assert it's patent but I'm pretty sure others have patents they infringe. Who looses? Anyone else trying to build a Android device that doesn't have a gazillion patents. Little tablet companies are a good example.

Business was more efficient under Communism! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078482)

I had the great misfortune of spending a large portion of my life living and doing business under a Communist dictatorship. There was a reason Communism failed; those of us subjected to it hated it! But after reading more and more about how "intellectual property" impacts American businesses, in many ways it makes the Communist system sound better. While we had a lot of bullshit bureaucracy to deal with, it was nevertheless much more efficient than this American nonsense.

When developing a product, we didn't have a larger proportion of the development cost going towards lawyers and IP legalities than we had going to the engineers and manufacturers who actually created the product!

We didn't have products forced out of the marketplace due to licensing problems, depriving consumers of devices that are otherwise safe, useful, and valuable.

We didn't have businesses whose sole purpose was to leech off of the hard work of others by requiring licensing of their "intellectual property". Even the committees and other bureaucratic bullshitters we had to deal with, which in many ways were leeches as well, provided some minimalistic amount of beneficial coordination and consensus-building.

It's no wonder so many Asian countries are wiping the floor with America these days, economically speaking. You Americans have built yourself a "free market" that's extremely stupidly regulated in all of the wrong ways, and extremely inefficient, as well!

Re:Business was more efficient under Communism! (1)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078518)

You know, someone has to do research and invent those things. You can't just copy everything off someone else. If you look at past and current communist countries you can see they're not exactly the most advantageous countries in the world, especially without copying things from other countries where they are first developed. I agree that some of the patent issues are completely ridiculous, but removing the patent system (and in a slightly related note copyright system) creates more problems than it solves. People should just try to find the best balance.

Re:Business was more efficient under Communism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078626)

People should just try to find the best balance.

No. In a free society, there is always a battle with balance, and those in charge win the battle until there is civil war (war used loosely). The side effect of freedom is disagreement. In a dictatorship, there is no freedom, and so there is no battle. The system is working correctly currently. People in power use every trick to stay in power, while the lesser beings are happy with bread and circuses.

Re:Business was more efficient under Communism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078684)

You know, someone has to do research and invent those things.

Like rectangular rounded screen...

You can't just copy everything off someone else.

Yes you can, as far as basic ideas go, it's just a common sense.
We aren't talking about complex technological processes here.
It's all about patent trolling. Google maybe "stole" something from Sun, but there is a crowd of companies that are after Android, which is terribly wrong.

Re:Business was more efficient under Communism! (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078842)

I don't find this argument very convincing. If indeed, as you say, you can't just copy everything, then I guess the corporations will just have to research and innovate, patents or no. They will just have to get used to the idea of not having the sugar daddy patent system. They will still have trade secrets. The good thing from a policy point of view about trade secrets is that they don't stifle parallel invention or independent invention the way patents do.

The worst of the patent system is the seamy matter of drugs and medicine. This leads to egregious prices as corporations make large investments and then try to cash in before the patent runs out; after which the true cost of the item is reflected in vastly cheaper generics. No one with any humanity or common sense believes that drug development and medical research should be a matter of corporate investment. These ought to be matters of public policy and public funding for the common good.

Face it, patents are an obsolete idea, and as a matter of fact they were always on the hare-brained edge anyway. They helped get government and industry in bed together. Most of all, they are simply evil on the face of it. They are like paying tribute to the big bad corporate ogre so he won't eat us. The answer is not to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic by fiddling with minor patent details. They have to go. Don't be timid. Clean house. Do something meaningful.

Trust me, saying "just look at communist countries" does not really do the job. One can come back with "well, look at China's enormous success," whereupon I would hazard a guess that you would say "oh, they're not really communist any more." It just gets us bogged down. If you look at the USSR, they actually achieved remarkable industrial gains from 1918 to the end in 1991. If they did concentrate too much on defense (and I'm not saying one way or the other whether I believe that) and not enough on consumer goods, that is a mere policy question. Anyway, the US, which in 1917 already enjoyed a high industrial level (which the USSR did not), has ended up in the same broke condition as the USSR, only 20 years later.

Re:Business was more efficient under Communism! (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078652)

That's because it's not a free market, but a government regulated market. Technically, the US economy has been moving more and more towards fascism (government picks winners and losers and closely controls activity, but doesn't directly own the assets) since the 1930's. Free markets have been increasingly hard to find, especially since the late 1980's, in the US.

Re:Business was more efficient under Communism! (2)

gtall (79522) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079822)

Fascism? Look up your definition. And entirely free markets only exist in your head. They generally devolve into monopolies, see early U.S. economic history. There is a reason we have regulation, the lack of which allowed the Wall Street banks to make a bad bubble in housing expand to the point it threatens not only the U.S. economy but the entire world's.

Nothing special about Android (3, Insightful)

Concern (819622) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078520)

It starts with a few companies who "only" want to collect $5, or $10, or $35 per Android device. I suppose we can all nod our heads and agree that the mighty should be able to throw their weight around. It feels right. Who cares about the details - we're sure Linux must have stolen something. Otherwise how could it be so great? And so cheap?

But nothing stops the flow of new complaints. Do you know how many software patents there are? How many new applications per day? How many are obvious, trivial, or overly broad? Soon it will be a dozen companies collecting a Linux tax - forget merely on Android - and then it will be 30. A gold rush will ensue - get on the list of people who have to be paid off. Name your own price - the world's high tech giants will have to pay up! But, oh dear. iOS will suddenly have the exact same problem. Do you know how many patents they violate? So will Windows Phone. So will Blackberry. So will those little "learn to read" kiddie computers they sell in Toys R Us. So will everyone.

When it finally becomes more than just a few pariahs and evil actors in the tech industry who try to enforce their patents, it ends with every product having dozens and then hundreds of lawyers showing up to tax them. The only question is, how much economic damage will we do to ourselves before we finally take the obvious step and abolish software patents - which were never even allowed in the first place in Europe, India, and China. This economically pernicious barratry is so obviously stupid that it makes the US an object ridicule abroad.

The tacit policy of allowing software to be patentable reduces competition, stifles innovation, breaks healthy markets, and diverts money to billion-dollar portfolio buys instead of jobs. The only thing it reliably accomplishes is enriching lawyers - the least economically productive activity imaginable.

Re:Nothing special about Android (2)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078694)

Usually, the way it works is that where company A sues company B for violating their patents, company B digs around to see if that violation works both ways. More often than not it does, so company B says "Look, you're violating our patents as well - so why don't we cross-license these patents and put this lawsuit to bed?".

Where it's been awkward with Android is that Oracle don't make phones, and phone manufacturers don't usually make databases or operating systems. So the likelihood of patent infringement working both ways is pretty slim.

Motorola's a bit different here - there's a good chance that exactly this will happen if Motorola sue the likes of HTC or Sony Ericsson.

Re:Nothing special about Android (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078968)

Does all that mean that cell phones will be litigated and taxed into obscurity? No more yapping at the movie theater. No more texting down the freeway. No more having to rip the earbuds off a sullen teenager to get their attention?

Bring it on!

Re:They were played (0)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078524)

Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android. Companies stupidly believed the whole free hype and are only now starting to realize that they would actually need to pay something for Android. When you license a mobile OS from other provides, for example from Nokia or Microsoft, all the relevant patents to the OS are included within the deal, the costs are known upfront and it's just simpler. They can only blame themself for not seeing thru the Google marketing.

Thank you for freeing me from corporate oppression - I now realise Microsoft (and Facebook) are the bastions of democracy, and proponents for a new and better world. Until now I'd laboured under the delusion that the world was a complex place of many shades, where the young eat the old and that's how it should be - I now see the error of my way, and understand that the "old school" rules, and all issues are either black or white. No longer am I a turd in the herd blinded by marketing and obsequiously sucking dick in the deluded belief I'll imbibe the power of my idol. Never more will I falsely believe that Microsoft, Skype, and Nokia are separate companies.

Oh wait... all companies are in it for the money - all share holders screw over companies for the money - all politicians suck cock - and you, as you shill for free, are a dickhead.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078546)

Good god you're like the annoying version of eldavojohn... every single story you've participated in has been trolled at the beginning by a top-post from you.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078622)

One of the ideas of the Open Handset Alliance (of which Android is a product and Motorola is among the members) was that they not only create an open mobile platform but also share related patents in order to protect the alliance and its members. If Motorola truly chooses to patent-troll other members of the alliance then I don't think they'll be part of it (and part of the Android ecosystem) for very long.

Re:They were played (1)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078654)

So Google should provide a free OS and take the liability costs of defending all patent trolls? That seems like a losing proposition. Of course, like Florian the Troll, the real suggestion is that Google should close source Android, charge licensing fee to manufacturers, and provide legal indemnity with it. This is a scene from Ballmer's nastiest wet dream, not a realistic proposal.

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078662)

Google knew fully well what will happen. That's why they don't provide any shield against patents or license them. They took the wise (if slightly evil) route of just giving out as "free" and not mentioning that other companies have patents that affects anyone using Android.

Given that Google was actively negotiating with Sun Microsystems, trying to get to use mobile Java, then when Google couldn't come to an agreement with Sun, they went off, did some magic-wand mental masturbation and come up with not-Java-(despite using Java class libs), I take exception to your characterization of Google's actions as "slightly evil".

Because it's evil and downright despicable to negotiate with someone over using something - which means you already know you can't use it for free - then go ahead and use it anyway when you can't come to an agreement, relying on the fact that the party you're negotiating with has a history of not litigating such actions.

Of course, this is going to piss Google fanbois off....

Re:They were played (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079536)

Google is in it up to their heads and they are about to be buried:

Google fighting to suppress evidence Android willfully infringed upon Oracle's Java

Back in 2005, well before Android was released, Rubin wrote, "If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way."

Regarding that email, Mueller noted that the judge overseeing the case observed, "Google may have simply been brazen, preferring to roll the dice on possible litigation rather than to pay a fair price [to license Java]."

Rubin's email suggests that the Android group was fully aware that it had already invested a lot of work into its Java-related platform, too much so to shift to the adoption of Microsoft's alternative language and runtime.

However, Google also rejected a deal with Sun to pay for Java licensing, and Rubin's comments make it clear that the company planned to just keep going and see what would happen, inviting "enemies," and, presumably, their legal response.

"We need to negotiate a license for Java"

Nearly five years later, a second internal Google email known as the "Lindholm draft" stated, "What we've actually been asked to do (by [Google founders] Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We've been over a bunch of these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need."

That email caused federal judge Alsup to observe in a hearing that, as Florian reported, "a good trial lawyer would just need that document 'and the Magna Carta' (arguably the origin of common law) to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully."

REF: http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?threadid=130086 [appleinsider.com]

Open Source but Patent Encumbered (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078402)

Motorola is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) player in the mobile market. Expect the other big players that dont already have cross-licensing deals with Motorola to be begging for such a deal.

Android has a strong future, but its no longer "free beer!" .. at least in the phone space.

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078420)

Every time you touch your droid, god kills a kitten.

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078960)

Every time you touch your droid, god kills a kitten.

So stop using it to reply to slashdot articles.

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered, consequences (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078454)

Our wonderful omniscient current production model already has moved manufacturing jobs to South East Asia. Following this strategy of software patents will very soon also move design and innovation abroad. Once it is done all there is left is ownership and royalties. The situation will eclipse as China has grown to be the most powerful nation, which is in 5-10 years.

This is like watching a bacteria culture in a bottle... from inside. Reminds me of the Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones".

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered, consequences (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078542)

China needs to face some serious issues that are not easily solved before they will rise to "most powerful nation" status.

China is in economic danger because of the threat of social unrest. While they have kept things tight so far, unrest has only been minor. They can't allow hundreds of millions to rise up in protest, and yet the only way to prevent that from happening is to keep giving them more and more of the things they want.

The people demand a better quality of life so the government cannot "simply" keep wages artificially low forever. Keeping pace with the western world, thus maintaining a large wage advantage while still incrementally improving the quality of life is no longer viable, for the western world is sliding backwards now. They must choose between the incremental improvements necessary to prevent unrest and the wage advantage necessary to remain competitive.

My fear is that they will try to maintain the wage advantage and thus eventually have to beat down hundreds of millions.. sparking the largest body count in the history of the world.. making Mao, Stalin, and Hitler look like saints...

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered, consequences (1)

Nikker (749551) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078836)

China uses the same tactics as the US did during the cold war. The tell their people how corrupt and evil everyone else is and the only way to be 'pure' is to give up as much as they can to the government. As long as they keep the west as the big bad wolf they will keep their people in line. Oh wait that's the same thing that's happening to us!

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered, consequences (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078548)

Greed is one of the 7 mortal sins and indeed, the punishment will be death.

Re:Open Source but Patent Encumbered, consequences (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078598)

Our wonderful omniscient current production model already has moved manufacturing jobs to South East Asia. Following this strategy of software patents will very soon also move design and innovation abroad. Once it is done all there is left is ownership and royalties. The situation will eclipse as China has grown to be the most powerful nation, which is in 5-10 years.

This is like watching a bacteria culture in a bottle... from inside. Reminds me of the Einstein quote "I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought but ww4 will be fought with sticks and stones".

Particularly as it's now Chinese companies that annually apply for the most patents - and mostly they're manufacturing patents not stupidity like "device for transferring voice" "idea for word processor". Ten years ago Nokia and Microsoft shares were a good investment. Not anymore. There's a good reason for that.

Collect royalties (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078406)

Theres plenty of souvenirs left over from William & Kates wedding they could collect.

Asian manufacturers win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078412)

Seems like a win for asian manufacturers to me, as if US based companies don't want to be succesful.

I have an HTC right now but my next phone will be a Samsung, they make great phones for development and are easy to flash with odin or heimdal.

Re:Asian manufacturers win (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078630)

Seems like a win for Asian manufacturers to me, as if US based companies don't want to be successful.

They do - it's geographic location and patriotism that blinds people to the truth - business goes where the money is, when it's not in the US, then they (sic) cease to be American companies. Or they base themselves in Washington to avoid US tax, and spend money on killing off profitable mobile phone manufactures just to strip them of patents as a means of avoiding paying US tax on all their European earnings.

Re:Asian manufacturers win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078840)

I don't think you understand what [sic] is for. When quoting someone and there's a typo in the original, [sic] tells the reader that it's not a typo introduced during the quoting. That the error is from the original source.

Re:Asian manufacturers win (0)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079182)

I don't think you understand what [sic] is for. When quoting someone and there's a typo in the original, [sic] tells the reader that it's not a typo introduced during the quoting. That the error is from the original source.

I do - do you know the difference between square brackets and round? If you're going to play grammar nazi learn the language first. HINT: a pictionary is not an authoritative guide to language. Get a guide not made from felt and read beyond the first sentence. If your lips get sore use a little lubricant.

Re:Asian manufacturers win (1)

siride (974284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079660)

Using parentheses (or "round brackets" as you call them) does not change the fact that you used "sic" incorrectly.

Re:Asian manufacturers win (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079794)

Self-siccing: While chiefly used in text that is not one's own, occasionally, a sic is included by a writer after his or her own word(s) to note that the language has been chosen deliberately, especially where a reader may naturally doubt the writer's intentions.[30] Bryan A. Garner dubbed this kind of siccing as the "ironic use," ...

Nonetheless, a writer's siccing of his or her own words may lead readers to confuse the source of the sic as being the book's editor and is often considered strange even when the sic's source is understood.

A bright future for Android (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078462)

First Microsoft, now Motorola, this turnip is going to be dry soon...

Exthort money, you mean. (1, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078478)

Lets use more appropriate words for the definitions.

Re:Exthort money, you mean. (1)

Demonoid-Penguin (1669014) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079206)

Let us use more appropriate words for the definitions.

OK ;-p

First Microsoft, now Motorola, there's only so much milk you can can squeeze from that potato....

Re:Exthort money, you mean. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079560)

I hope Google has the sense to threaten Motorola with restricting them from using the Android OS.

This might be a good thing... maybe (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078498)

All of what I think is based on huge amounts of speculation. But I don't yet see Motorola as an evil company.

The Motorola patents aren't likely to be software patents and I have to wonder if any of them will be. Motorola and mobile phones go way back after all. I think if Motorola strikes deals with other android mobile phone makers which is reasonable and affordable, then it's just fine. It could also prove to be highly defensive of the Android community once they strike deals early on with Android phone namers, they will naturally expand to other phone makers.

(This is where my speculations turn to hopes)

Once Motorola turn to other mobile phone makers, I hope the deals with makers such as Apple include deals which prohibit their actions against Android makers.

As others have pointed out, Apple does NOT want to mess with Motorola. Motorola has been patenting mobile technologies for a LOT longer than Apple has which gives Motorola the upper hand in these kinds of situations.

Re:This might be a good thing... maybe (1)

Envy Life (993972) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078570)

Maybe Apple is cautious with Motorola on mobile phones, but they are initiated a lawsuit over the Motorola Xoom because of countries bending over in the Samsung Galaxy Tab suits.... because no one can prove that apple Apple doesn't own the rectangular monitor design?

I suppose when your own product can't hold up to the market, turn to the courts to stifle competition.

Can't hold up to the market? (1)

brokeninside (34168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078624)

Apple is selling iPads as fast as they can make them. Xoom and Galaxy aren't anywhere close to denting their sales.

IMO, there are quite a few good reasons to give Apple grief over their Motorola and Samsung lawsuits. But that the allegation that Apple is motivated to bring these suits forward because their products are not able to compete on their own merits in the marketplace is not one of them.

Now, were Apple going after Palm over Newton patents a decade ago, I think you might be able to make such a case. But that allegation over the iPad is just goofy.

Re:Can't hold up to the market? (1)

Rennt (582550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079118)

Apple are using the courts to shut down competitors, which means that they do not back their own capacity to compete.

Re:Can't hold up to the market? (1)

Envy Life (993972) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079422)

Android tablets combined have taken away 20% of the iPad market share this year, and so it goes that Apple is going after multiple Android tablet makers, not just one.

Buy Motorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078572)

As others have pointed out, Apple does NOT want to mess with Motorola. Motorola has been patenting mobile technologies for a LOT longer than Apple has which gives Motorola the upper hand in these kinds of situations.

There's one simple way to fix that. Apple has so much cash it can afford to buy Motorola. Motorola may be old but it's not exactly swimming in cash. Motorola will be a bargain. Buy the company for the patents and lay off the rest.

Re:Buy Motorola (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078820)

Although Apple has been known to buy things out, it's mainly small companies centering on very specific, underrated technology that they see as being able to leverage. Instead of whipping up their own copycat version and risk an established (even if very small) company suing and winning, they just buy them. Many technologies in Apple's hardware and software were purchased, to save on R&D as well as patent lawsuits.

It also gives them a head start on that idea - people watch Apple with a microscope, and when they start working on something, lots of trolls take notice a and start to look for ways to get their claws into a piece of it somehow, since Apple has a history of finding new markets. If they suddenly snatch up a little company that specializes in an unproven technology, the same thing happens, but Apple has a tremendous development head start, and has the necessary patents already in place.

Apple isn't big on buying larger companies. Too much dead weight to deal with. As you were saying, keep the patents and sell the rest. Why bother with the latter when you can buy a trim little company whose primary assets are the patents and the engineers that specialize in what you're interested in? So much easier that way to shed the remainder you don't need. Compare that with say, MS's recent purchase of Skype. They waited longer than they should have for sure, (microsoft's slow reaction time is a heavy burden on them in new arenas) but it's the same idea. But it still gives them a tremendous jumpstart both technologically and legally, without much drag.

Re:This might be a good thing... maybe (1)

ticklemeozmo (595926) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078600)

I don't yet see Motorola as an evil company.

Is 'erroneous' a vanity name and I'm missing the joke? There is nothing Motorola that says "power to the people." Their tablets are locked down, their phones are ticking time bombs, their cable set-top boxes are crippled; all in the name of "for your protection."

I still have hope you are kidding, and I'm the butt of this joke...

Re:This might be a good thing... maybe (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078710)

Actually, I don't own anything motorola unless it is the occasional chip within something else. I once owned a Motorola Startac phone long, long ago... but that's about it. I'm not a Moto-fan, I just don't see them as evil -- could be my lack of experience with them.

Re:This might be a good thing... maybe (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078988)

Actually, I don't own anything motorola unless it is the occasional chip within something else. I once owned a Motorola Startac phone long, long ago... but that's about it. I'm not a Moto-fan, I just don't see them as evil -- could be my lack of experience with them.

Evil and incompetent are two entirely different things, but let me assure you that Motorola handily manages to be both.

Android is a piece of software (3, Informative)

nten (709128) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078636)

If Motorola is targeting Android manufacturers that implies that it is something about Android that is infringing Motorola's patents. Since Android only consists of software, the patents it is infringing by definition must be software patents.

Re:Android is a piece of software (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078722)

Android is software. But to make use of Android, especially on a mobile phone, some hardware requirements must be met.

Motorola did not invent the mobile phone! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078534)

By no definition of what constitutes a mobile phone, did Motorola invent the mobile phone as is claimed by the article. They haven't even provided much refinements of pre-existing technology. They introduced the mobile phone to the US market, that's pretty much it. Next somebody claims that Bill Gates invented computers or operating systems.

The early history of mobile phone technology is shrouded in clouds. The Swedish military had mobile/portable phones in the 1930's, but they were likely not alone.

The development and introduction of a mobile phones for non-military use was almost exclusively done by Scandinavian actors. Beginning with the Swedish phones for use in cars and (more important) the technology for city wide mobile phone networks in the late 1940's, and culminating in the NMT system in 1981, that unified the different Scandinavian national network technologies into one, most of it already old and proven technology (the most important inovation of the NMT system, was the idea to dial the phone number and then connect to the phone net, not connect to the phone net and then dial the phone number, as had been done since the first automatic phone systems (also Scandinavian inventions, by the way, the first phones was invented and made by Italians, not Graham Bell (he copied the mechanism of his phone from an article in a paper) or any other US-American, just to set things straight)).

All mobile phone technology that have been invented after that, is just small refinements.

Re:Motorola did not invent the mobile phone! (2)

westlake (615356) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079446)

by the way, the first phones was invented and made by Italians, not Graham Bell (he copied the mechanism of his phone from an article in a paper)

Bell demonstrated his phone at the Centennial Expo in Philadelphia in 1876. The first Bell telephone exhange opened in New Haven, Connecticut in January 1878.

In 1871 Meucci filed a caveat at the US Patent Office. His caveat describes his invention, but does not mention a diaphragm, electromagnet, conversion of sound into electrical waves, conversion of electrical waves into sound, or other essential features of an electromagnetic telephone.

Meucci's 1871 caveat did not mention any of the telephone features later credited to him by his lawyer, and which were published in [a] Scientific American Supplement [in 1885] , a major reason for the loss of the 'Bell v. Globe and Meucci' patent infringement court case.

Invention of the telephone [wikipedia.org]

In 1885 there were 50 telephones per 1,000 population in Atlanta, 30 in Honolulu, 22 in Buffalo.

Re:Motorola did not invent the mobile phone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079772)

Next you will say that Americans build the first commercial SST or VTOL aircraft.
Just like the Russians say that a Russian invented the TV, Radio and just about everything else (according to Soviet era Textbooks)

A $ here,a $ there, Everywhere you turn more $$$$$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078544)

$5 to Microsoft (if you are HTC)
$15 to Microsoft (if you are Samsung)
$20 to Motorola (pure speculation on the $ amount)

Soon it won't be profitable to sell any Android handsets cheaper than an iPhone.

What are they (Motorola) thinking of? Do you ever want to sell another handset or are you transitioning into a patent Troll?

Re:A $ here,a $ there, Everywhere you turn more $$ (1)

grim4593 (947789) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078658)

Motorola makes Android phones so the prices of their competitors will go up and since Motorola owns the patents they don't have to pay anything extra. At that point Motorola could either keep the prices of their Android phones low to undercut the competition or keep the prices in line with everyone else and take in the extra money as profit.

Re:A $ here,a $ there, Everywhere you turn more $$ (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078754)

Soon it won't be profitable to sell any Android handsets cheaper than an iPhone.

What are they (Motorola) thinking of? Do you ever want to sell another handset or are you transitioning into a patent Troll?

Actually, I think most of the mobile phone industry is in a similar position.

They're trying desperately to avoid phone handsets becoming a commodity. Historically, this has been fairly easy because every manufacturer had their strengths and their weaknesses. Software was often a weakness, hence why they frequently bring it in from outside (cf. Android, Windows Mobile, Symbian).

The problem with Android is that it's a game changer. Already we see companies that produce mobile phones have stepped up their development pace pretty drastically - once a few Chinese companies start punting reference designs the amount of work for any old fred to enter the phone industry is drastically reduced. This is going to hammer the profit-per-phone - and when you've got a $multi-billion global company, you can't really restructure it to account for such a sea change.

So you don't. You look for a way to stop Android from being such a destructive technology - and that's what we're seeing Motorola do. Make no mistake, they won't be the last.

no more moto phone for me! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078568)

My droid is the last moto phone I will purchase.

Re:no more moto phone for me! (1)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078700)

My droid is the last moto phone I will purchase.

If you're avoiding products from manufacturers who try to enforce their patents, you're going to be living in a cave real soon now.

Re:no more moto phone for me! (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078854)

My droid is the last moto phone I will purchase.

Don't you even want to wait until they actually do it? Right now it's just speculation. And if and when they do do it, maybe you'd want to evaluate their claims first?

Hardware patents not software patents (3, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078588)

Motorola 'may' collect royalties on phones that violate their hardware patents including Android phones. Its not the same thing as collecting royalties for Android or any particular feature of the operating system itself. It still sucks in my opinion but lets get real here this is not about software patents which remain the bulk of the problem with companies like Microsoft, Eolas, Lodsys and Apple. Software is already protected by copyright it should not be stifled with patents. And people on here parroting the notion coined my Microsoft Public Relations such as "Developers should indemnify users" are pathetic trolls. When you claim that developers should 'indemnify' users you are claiming that in order to write software or be a developer you have to have billions of dollars and a massive legal department in order to write code and distribute it. That is a farce notion pioneered and spread throughout the press by Microsoft PR against open source after the SCO fiasco which they funded.

Speculative Ramblings (4, Insightful)

CowTipperGore (1081903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078610)

This one of several blogs I've seen make this claim the past two days, and I'm honestly still at a loss to explain their assumption. There is nothing in Jha's quote to indicate they are going after other Android makers. The blog linked from the summary says during its Q2 earnings conference call Motorola hinted that it is ready to join Android patent racket, and start demanding licensing fees for its IP from other Android manufacturers.

He based that claim on these comments:

With new entrants in the mobile space, resulting from the convergence of mobility, media, computing and the internet, our patent portfolio is increasingly important...Probably a little less well known is our strength in patent portfolio in non-essential patents, which are capabilities that are important to have in delivering competitive products in the marketplace...As we go forward, I think that the introduction of number of players with large revenues, which have come into the marketplace as a result of the convergence of the mobility, computing, internet and other segments, I think that that creates an opportunity for us to monetize and maximize the shareholder value in a number of different ways and we evaluate all of them all the time.

From that, the blogger now knows that Motorola plans to collect $60 per handset from HTC and Samsung. Or so he says. Now, he's made a new post, using a new quote from Jha to cement his position. He claims that this week Motorola’s CEO Sanjay Jha reiterated this message, and made it even more clear – they do indeed have plans to start collecting IP royalties from other Android makers. What did Jha say that so clearly showed Motorola's plans to sue their Android brethren?

I would bring up IP as a very important for differentiation (among Android vendors). We have a very large IP portfolio, and I think in the long term, as things settle down, you will see a meaningful difference in positions of many different Android players. Both, in terms of avoidance of royalties, as well as potentially being able to collect royalties. And that will make a big difference to people who have very strong IP positions.

That seems more likely (to me) to say that Motorola is not HTC and will not be paying Microsoft blackmail money. In fact, they may be able to extract their own pound of flesh from Microsoft and Apple. What in that passage gives any hint that Motorola will be pursuing other Android manufacturers? I'm at a loss.

Re:Speculative Ramblings (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078772)

Exactly. As it has been pointed out Android has a patent fee. http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-ballmer-android-isnt-free-it-has-a-patent-fee-2010-10 [businessinsider.com] And more recently http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2011/08/09/in-major-win-for-apple-galaxy-tab-10-1-banned-in-europe/ [forbes.com] Now that Android has proven it's self and has a strong foot hold expect more and more companies trying to get some money off of it.

Re:Speculative Ramblings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079004)

You do realize that citing Steve Ballmer is one of the few things that can drag your credibility lower than citing Florian Mueller, right?

Re:Speculative Ramblings (1)

blake298 (1893804) | more than 2 years ago | (#37078868)

I think you are spot on.... What I hear Mororola's CEA Sanja Jha doing is rattling his saber to the likes of Microsoft and Apple. He's telling them that Motorola is well armed (with their own IP), and will not limit itself to palying defense if attacked by Microsoft or Apple.

Shoot the lawyers; problem solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078826)

Lawyers love this sort of thing. You and I aren't allowed to argue the case and settle it between us. Instead, if we are to challenge any of this nonsense, we have to participate in a complex ritual the rules of which are only known to the initiated (lawyers and judges).

It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with a group of people with a vested interest in keeping things complex which are not naturally complex.

The very notion of intellectual property is too absurd; an invention of a twisted mind; a long shot which worked out for the lawyer who dreamt it up. He and those who followed behind must be laughing their heads off.

Patents suck, until they're yours (1)

mveloso (325617) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079330)

Since you haven't actually invented anything, it's easy for you to say that patents are crap.

However, for the people involved, they may have actually put a lot of hard work, thought, and know-how into what the patent covers. Things that are obvious today aren't obvious when you're the first mover in the space.

Mechanical patents can seem just as ridiculous as software patents, if you bother to read them. Does the patent regime make sense?

Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?

Re:Patents suck, until they're yours (2)

melikamp (631205) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079634)

Let's put it this way: if you were going to spend a few hundred million of your own dollars, wouldn't you want some protection against some yahoo coming along, copying your work, and selling it for less?

But there is no shortage of some protection. Trade secrets, first mover advantage, and government subsidies are very effective in rewarding people and companies that innovate. Subsidizing research out of taxes, in particular, should be several times more effective. In drug research, for example, we end up paying a patent "tax" which covers research and testing, but also marketing (which is often more expensive), and then some more to fill the upper management pockets. The alternative is to pay for the research directly, and then let generic drug manufacturers fight each other. Some patent defenders like pretending that there is no other way to reward inventors, but that's clearly bullshit. Most of them also believe that the patent regime improves the rate of innovation, but this assertion has been challenged many times by economists, and in fields like software is known to be flatly false; and the ethical problems which arise in fields like biology and medicine are daunting.

apple and microsoft approach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37078846)

I always thought motorola android was the worst and overpriced bunch. Since they can't win market share, I guess they are going down the apple and microsoft road and sue instead of innovate. More reason not to buy motorola items.

What if this is just an Accounting trick? (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079362)

What if Motorola charge Google $0.02 per android to cover licence infringement.
Google then charge Motorola $0.02 for every mobile with android sold
on paper Both are getting large royalties from each other but in reality it zero's out.

(*note* figures are examples only and not representative of any financial calculations, but you get the idea.)

Re:What if this is just an Accounting trick? (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079390)

p.s.
The above also works if multiple companies charge each other for for infringing patents.
You get lots of $$££€€'s moving around but it all zero's out in the balances...

Re:What if this is just an Accounting trick? (1)

Goglu (774689) | more than 2 years ago | (#37079492)

"You get lots of $$££€€'s moving around but it all zero's out in the balances..."

Except that, in the meanwhile, you added thousands of dollars in litigation fees, making your lawyers richer, at the expense of shareholders or, most probably, consumers.

a requirement of a settlement with Microsoft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079406)

I can see Microsoft negotiating something like this with Motorola since the reason for Microsoft to sue Motorola over Android is not for the revenue but to knock Android out of the market. They have no control over the mobile device application development market at this time.

Florian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37079724)

Wait, what? This did *not* origin with Florian?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...