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 Files Legal Action Against Samsung Over Android Patent Dispute

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the ready-for-a-rematch dept.

Microsoft 83

DroidJason1 writes: Microsoft has filed a contract dispute lawsuit against Samsung over what Microsoft claims is a breach of contract by Samsung involving Android patent royalties. Back in 2011, Samsung voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract with Microsoft in a cross-licensing IP agreement involving Android patents. Samsung has grown over the past few years and now believes that Microsoft's recent acquisition of Nokia nulls the agreement. Microsoft has gone to court and is asking to settle the disagreement with Samsung in order to continue the original agreement.

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

Laugh all the way to the bank (4, Insightful)

CptChipJew (301983) | about 3 months ago | (#47585145)

The only people winning this are the IP lawyers.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0, Flamebait)

the_povinator (936048) | about 3 months ago | (#47585269)

Mod me flamebait, but I am with Microsoft on this one. As mentioned in their press release at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us... [microsoft.com] , Samsung agreed that "Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform".

I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (4, Insightful)

queazocotal (915608) | about 3 months ago | (#47585291)

You can't really comment without seeing in full, the original agreement, and preferably scrutinising it in detail, along with any precedent in the relevant courts.

There could have, for example, been agreements as to Microsoft not doing some things in the phone space - such as for example selling android phones - that it's reasonable to argue (from Samsungs perspective) Microsoft has breached, voiding the original deal.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585325)

And yet you can comment

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586903)

Err, he commented specifically to say that we don't have full information. He didn't say that Microsoft was definitely right or wrong, just offered a possible example of why Samsung might feel they have a case.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586929)

And yet you can comment

I can too, and I'll say what I've been saying all along:

Microsoft distributing GPL code, including the FAT code that they've been using to extort money from Android vendors, means that they can no longer claim patent rights.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (2, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 months ago | (#47585345)

That would be one sweet booby trap if Nokia management started work on those android phones post sale agreement, pre-sale completion, just to have it blow up on Microsoft as revenge for the gutting Microsoft performed on Nokia.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47587271)

That would be one sweet booby trap if Nokia management started work on those android phones post sale agreement, pre-sale completion, just to have it blow up on Microsoft as revenge for the gutting Microsoft performed on Nokia.

It's possible, but in this instance, it's more likely just their own slimy business practices catching up with them.

Back in April, the Chinese government released the list of 310 patents Microsoft was using to extort Android vendors. M-Cam (a global IP underwriting group) analysed the patents and found that the patents were mostly non-commercial, expired or invalid.

They speculated that:

”With this disclosure, China may be attempting to counteract Microsoft’s chokehold on the smartphone market. By disclosing the detailed list of these patents, companies who currently pay a license to Microsoft for the Android platform may discover that they have patents on the same technologies which precede Microsoft’s patents. This may create an opening for them to either negotiate a better deal or demand that Microsoft license from them,” M-Cam’s report said.

So it looks like Samsung might not only have a good case to halt payment, but may also have grounds for a countersuit to get back the money MS has already illegally extracted.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

nwf (25607) | about 3 months ago | (#47591647)

So it looks like Samsung might not only have a good case to halt payment, but may also have grounds for a countersuit to get back the money MS has already illegally extracted.

I'd bet you can voluntarily "license" expired patents, if you desire to do so. It will all come down to the wording on the agreement. I'd bet Samsung will lose, since they are even more slimy than Microsoft and Microsoft has proven one thing over the years: they have good lawyers. (Whereas, Samsung has largely proven the opposite for their lawyers.)

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47596243)

oh come on do you really think the lawyers of a behemoth like Samsung would have been paying royalties on expired patents? Really?

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (3, Informative)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 3 months ago | (#47585421)

I'm no lawyer of any account, however, the Microsoft press release (by David Howard) is impeccable ... it's the first link in TFS.

It's difficult to read it and not feel all warm and fuzzy about Microsoft and their seemingly reluctant, no other recourse lawsuit of Samsung, their dearest friend.

I don't know who's right or wrong here, or even if that belief set enters into the equation, but Microsoft looks good out of the gate.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47587077)

the Microsoft press release (by David Howard) is impeccable

Huh?

It looks like standard slimy MBA weasel-words to me, and will have no bearing on the outcome of the court case.

Whatever the merit of the lawsuit, this press release is way more reptilian and cunning than warm and fuzzy.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47588887)

+1 looked like a pretty vapid spin job to me as well...

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47587185)

Of course MicroShit looks good they have the money to buy off whatever they want. That includes hiring lawyers that will spend thousands of dollars, and man hours, to find loopholes that US regulators and other countries regulatory bodies have left wide open to favor big companies.

I'm not a lawyer but I would file complaints with the SEC and any other regulatory bodies and say this contract is nothing more then a anti-competitive practice. It wouldn't stick but maybe it will get attention and others will start looking into MS's licensing/contract practices.

This only shows me they are sore losers, MS went with an Android based phone, and even acquired Nokia in a poor attempt to think their still relevant. Samsung worked with them, and Samsung was foolish enough to do that, of course they only saw potential dollars signs and didn't think it thru. And there will be a brainless Judge involved as well that will rule in favor of MS because their lawyers brief looked smart.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47588043)

MS has a problem complaining to the SEC... after all it is already convicted of illegal anti-competitive practices, and is a monopoly as well.

One possible problem for MS is that Samsung could claim fraud by claiming payment for patents that have expired, and for patents that are invalid.

Now that the list of patents is public, a number of entries are looking shaky...

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | about 3 months ago | (#47585767)

And Apple was not supposed to be involved in music, just computers.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (5, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | about 3 months ago | (#47585351)

Mod me flamebait, but I am with Microsoft on this one. As mentioned in their press release at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us... [microsoft.com] , Samsung agreed that "Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform".

I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.

its very simple. They are not using microsoft products. This is not about Windows. This is Microsoft's attempt to use software patents to steer people away from using Android and Chrome OS on their general purpose computing devices. this is about software patents that should have never been filed and should have never been granted. The supreme court has recently spoken regarding this matter. loading text before images is not patentable along with the myriad of other junk software patents that Microsoft is using against Android.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585375)

"F" M$.

Re:I agree (1)

OhSoLaMeow (2536022) | about 3 months ago | (#47585927)

"F" M$.

And Beta? :-)

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (1, Interesting)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 3 months ago | (#47586171)

Whether you think Microsoft's position is meritless or not, Samsung entered into a contract with them. They didn't ask a court for a legal opinion, they just stopped paying. You can't make unilateral decisions like that. They know they're stuck and the courts will reinstate the payments, but their long-standing MO is to do something illegal and then keep other companies tied up in litigation until the point is moot or the other side has run out of money. I'm not even just talking about Appleâ"they've done this as long as they've been around.

Microsoft's success or failure in the market isn't relevant, and neither is your position on whether they're deserving of the patents that they hold. They own the patents, they're not latent trolls (in the sense that they're making devices in the space where they hold these patents), and the legal system works like this right now. Maybe at some other time and place Samsung would be in the clear both legally and morally, but they're sure not right now.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (4, Informative)

queazocotal (915608) | about 3 months ago | (#47586229)

"Whether you think Microsoft's position is meritless or not, Samsung entered into a contract with them. They didn't ask a court for a legal opinion, they just stopped paying. You can't make unilateral decisions like that. "

Err - no.
In very rare circumstances do you ask a court to rule on a contract before anything has happened.
Their general response will be 'dismissed, you bear court costs, that's why you pay lawyers'.
The courts are in general not interested in offering legal advice - that's what you get expensive lawyers for.

This is exactly how contract law normally works.
X does something.
Y thinks they breached their contract, and consults their lawyers who agree that X breached the contract and has no right to future payment.
X says they diddn't, and their lawyers disagree.
Y stops paying.
X takes Y to court for non-payment.

Y cannot - at the first step - in most cases ask the court for an opinion.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

james_gnz (663440) | about 3 months ago | (#47587319)

"In very rare circumstances do you ask a court to rule on a contract before anything has happened." -- queazocotal

That's my understanding too--a court generally gets involved when someone alleges someone else has broken the law, not when someone is considering doing something and wants to check it won't break the law. I expect Dixie_Flatline got the opposite view from the linked Microsoft or WinBeta articles, both of which imply otherwise (although neither directly state it). I'd hazard a guess that the WinBeta article is largely parroting the Microsoft one, and my feeling is that neither are particularly reliable sources.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586577)

Well I wish the fuck they'd invalidate Apple's patent on selecting a phone number to dial it because I hate having to copy and paste phone numbers from search results to the phone in Android since Apply won that battle. Aren't patents supposed to be non-obvious?

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585385)

You can pay MS for their shitty OS if you want to. You know, that OS, the one they made billions of dollars off of and yet can't seem to muster the resources to secure or improve it.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (2)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 3 months ago | (#47587467)

Give credit where credit's due: those who run Microsoft are smart enough to realize that improving and securing their [wretched] products isn't part of their formula for success (it may even run downright counter to it).

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47589965)

God, shut the fuck up you neckbeard drone. You sound just like all the other fat bitter neckbeards still upset there's been no Year Of Linux on the Desktop yet.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585409)

> I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them.

I thought it was about patents. Outside the dubious concept of "owning ideas", did Samsung buy a mouse or even an SD card?

Regarding the latter, why is it so difficult to use ext4 (and add the capability to read ext4 to, say, Windows)? I bet It's not.

> I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.

I paid for my copy Windows. And I paid again. And again. And again. They did not add any meaningful improvement. Actually, considering that ribbon monstrosity and Metro bs, it's all cosmetic and designed to get in the way. So they can remove later, like putting back the Start button, and charge us again for that.

I hope Samsung wins and let's put an end this greed for bleeding the products of others. If Microsoft want to earn money with phones, stop being parasites of Android companies.

Actually, they must quite afraid that, now that China told which are the "valuable patents", companies will get around them and tell them to hit the road.

Parasites. Those who can't do, sue.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

staalmannen (1705340) | about 3 months ago | (#47587333)

In Samsungs case, switching from FAT or exFAT to F2FS and provide drivers for Windows and OSX would make sense. Windows users are used to having to install specialized drivers for peripherals anyway...

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (5, Insightful)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about 3 months ago | (#47585411)

TBH if microsoft have continuously failed to gain traction in the mobile phone market, I don't really see why its reasonable for them to tax the companies who've made a product people want to use.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586147)

TBH if microsoft have continuously failed to gain traction in the mobile phone market, I don't really see why its reasonable for them to tax the companies who've made a product people want to use.

Greed? Ego? Both? It's all based on software patents, which should not exist. Only a moron would allow corporations to patent mathematics. Or other things that the patent office itself says can't be patented but continue to allow anyway; prior art, obvious to one skilled in the art, not an innovation (adding the words "on a computer" to something that was patented in 1900), etc.

As far as the lawsuit I'm assuming that MS agreed to some kind of non-compete clause in their cross licensing agreement. A clause that Samsung probably feels MS violated when they bought Nokia. MS probably feels that doesn't count because ... well ... we're Microsoft after all, it just doesn't.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 3 months ago | (#47586189)

Because that's not how it works. And if those companies are successful by using technology that Microsoft invented or has acquired patents for, I'm not sure why you think the legal system shouldn't apply to them. If they can't succeed without Microsoft's patents, it implies they have some value, even if Microsoft hasn't been able to leverage that value. If they don't want to pay, they can invent a way around Microsoft's patents.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586227)

Assuming the patents are valid, which after the recent Supreme Court decision is a huge assumption.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47588177)

Like long filenames and other bullshit patents Microsoft won't disclose? Please do us all a favor and just the fuck up.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

SkunkPussy (85271) | about 3 months ago | (#47592319)

But the reason that say android is successful is probably not because of any specific patented technology it uses, rather it has a good enough user interface and google made it freely available for a while. The specific innovation behind android that led to its success is its open nature. None of microsoft's patents contribute to this.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47592069)

Because said companies are successful in part because they use some of Microsoft's R&D? Just because a company fails to put its ideas to good use doesn't mean that they are worthless by themselves. Clearly Samsung saw something there before that was worth paying for.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

phorm (591458) | about 3 months ago | (#47585413)

Also, Microsoft products? This seems to be about patents, and Android != Windows.

Maybe it has since determined that none of the patents MS was holding in that regard are valid?

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47585821)

I don't know if the headline is just poorly written, but it seems to suggest that Microsoft is suing Samsung for Android patents.

Microsoft owns Android patents? Since when?

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Fjandr (66656) | about 3 months ago | (#47586285)

A long time. Most tablet and phone manufacturers pay Android royalties to MS for patents which have never been publicly disclosed. Nobody knows for sure (except certain corporate lawyers) what these patents entail. It may be that the royalty costs are just lower than the cost of the legal years required to invalidate the patents.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about 3 months ago | (#47587219)

Nobody knows for sure (except certain corporate lawyers) what these patents entail.

They do now. The Chinese Government released details of all 310 Microsoft patents used in Android licensing agreements last month. You can download the list here: http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pe... [mofcom.gov.cn] (warning: docx)

That could be another reason why Samsung is now willing to contest the extortion. Very few of the patents are novel or non-obvious.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 3 months ago | (#47588119)

How can a patent not be disclosed to the public, unless it's some kind of national security thing? Here's one of the patents listed:

System and Method for Selecting a Tab Within a Tabbed Browser

Oh, this makes my head hurt. No wonder Samsung is telling Microsoft where they can stick their patents.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586635)

Mod me flamebait, but I am with Microsoft on this one.
As mentioned in their press release at http://www.microsoft.com/en-us... [microsoft.com] , Samsung agreed that
"Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform".

I don't know how Samsung thinks it can use Microsoft products without paying for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same.

The shills are strong on this one ;) what a surprise.

Perhaps you could just post the details of the Samsung/Microsoft agreement, since you obviously have it, to be able to judge the merit on this?

I also suspect Samsung has paid for all of its copies of windows.. but then that has absolutely nothing to do with this... does it.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47589973)

I love how you delusional neckbeards think ms gives a fuck what you tech dinosaurs think and pays shills to post here. Fucking dirty neckbeard scum.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#47591543)

Lots of shills, it is noticeable and it is rather boring.

Re: Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47596349)

No there aren't, you know that. The whole notion of it is ridiculous, particularly on a site like this. His opinion differs from yours and in lieu of a well formed rebuttal you attempt to dismiss it by labeling him a "shill". He could, with equal weight and validity, label you a Samsung shill.

So try and just make a valid argument because using nonsensical labels like "shill" just because you disagree only demonstrates your powerful emotional attachment to the issue and your inability to let go of your emotions when presenting your view.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Sudline (1552111) | about 3 months ago | (#47587643)

I don't know too how Samsung thinks it can use ** GOOGLE *** products without paying Mictrosoft for them. I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same when It use Android. Me too, when I buy a new pair of sockets I believe it is normal to pay royalties to Microsoft.

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 months ago | (#47588487)

" I paid for my copy of Windows, and I expect Samsung to do the same."

So you are one of those guys that thinks that if you get abused, everyone should be abused?

Re:Laugh all the way to the bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47596419)

Maybe if you try to explain that to us you'll realize how ridiculous you sound, you know somewhere along the line relating "buying a product" to "being abused" .. this is why nobody listens to the opinions of people like you.

I need to sue Samsung.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585161)

I'm feeling left off of the bandwagon.

Samsung: so sue us (3, Insightful)

mveloso (325617) | about 3 months ago | (#47585315)

Samsung's penalties have been pathetically small, so there's no real cost to them when it comes to violating and/or ignoring other people's IP.

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

Re:Samsung: so sue us (4, Funny)

machineghost (622031) | about 3 months ago | (#47585339)

Wait, since when did ethics have anything to do with IP law?

Re:Samsung: so sue us (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585639)

Oh, because wanting to fuck a creator out of his creation is ethical?
 
Go fuck yourself, faggot twat.

Re:Samsung: so sue us (1)

mveloso (325617) | about 3 months ago | (#47585891)

It doesn't. But it matters in the court of public opinion, which is why this is news.

Re:Samsung: so sue us (1)

nwf (25607) | about 3 months ago | (#47591657)

It doesn't. But it matters in the court of public opinion, which is why this is news.

Most of the people I see with Samsung phones can't spell lawyer, so I don't think it's going to matter.

Re:Samsung: so sue us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585755)

And when exactly have MS ever acted ethical?

Re:Samsung: so sue us (5, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 3 months ago | (#47585957)

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

How can you comment on the ethics of what Samsung is doing without actually having read the contract in full? For all we know the contract had a no competition clause which Microsoft may have violated by buying Nokia.

That's the life of contracts. I'm involved in the shutdown of a major industrial plant in my city. The way these things happen is that you look at the costs of running, and you look at the costs of the alternatives. The alternative costs include things such as legal wrangling over details of contracts you're trying to get out of.

It would be unethical to NOT try and get out of a contract which is costing you money for no good reason. This is just standard business practice and it's no different to arguing with your ISP who wants to charge you a full month even if your connection was unavailable for a week (been involved in this one as well and ended up getting a full month free).

Re:Samsung: so sue us (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 3 months ago | (#47586467)

Your aren't talking about ethics or morals, you're talking contract law. And we don't know what the contract amounts to. We do, however, know that MS was treatening to sue people right and left over secret patents, so it's quite reasonable that Samsung may have felt that they were coerced into signing the agreement. If so, then it's quite ethical to look for any escape hole.

Samsung: so sue us (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586125)

The penalties probably reflect the value of those IPs.

Re:Samsung: so sue us (2)

Tough Love (215404) | about 3 months ago | (#47587199)

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

You don't know that, because you don't know the full story.

Re:Samsung: so sue us (0)

FirstOne (193462) | about 3 months ago | (#47588259)

Samsung's position is entirely rational, but less than ethical.

more than ethical, for different reasons.

Since Microsoft purchase Nokia, they must enter into a cross license agreement or pay royalties to Samsung. Now M$ may pull an Apple and claim they shouldn't have to pay for standard essential cell phone patents.. But that argument becomes a double edged sword, since M$ patent licenses cover the standardized memory card file format(oopsey - standard essential ) . So what's good for the goose is good for gander so to speak..

Samsung clearly and right fully, thinks they shouldn't have to pay M$ any more royalties, since the material terms of the contract have changed since M$ has become a cell phone manufacturer.

Re: Samsung: so sue us (3, Informative)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 3 months ago | (#47588333)

But that argument becomes a double edged sword, since M$ patent licenses cover the standardized memory card file format(oopsey - standard essential ) . So what's good for the goose is good for gander so to speak..

"Standard essential" is not Just some arbitrary term that judges slap on a patent. The patent holder decides to agree to license their patent under FRAND in exchange for being a part of the standard. MS never tried to become part of a standard or did they agree to license the particular patent under FRAND.

Re: Samsung: so sue us (0)

FirstOne (193462) | about 3 months ago | (#47588497)

Some are FRAND and some are not.. A number of M$ patents have expired [dailytech.com] , ergo Samsung's position is much stronger now. Additionally, M$ transferred a large number of patents [tomsguide.com] to a 3rd party, so they don't have nearly as much to offer in a cross license agreement.

Re: Samsung: so sue us (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about 3 months ago | (#47588709)

It doesn't matter whether some MS patents have expired. According to the summary "Samsung voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract with Microsoft in a cross-licensing agreement".

Do you really think that Samsung's lawyers were incompetent enough to sign a contract that extended beyond the patent terms?

STEVE JOBS IS SUCH A FUCKING BAST...oh, wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585343)

This article is about Microsoft, in that case I would have to see the details but this seems totally legit and reasonable!

Change of circumstances/ (4, Interesting)

maroberts (15852) | about 3 months ago | (#47585393)

A number of factors could have changed since 2011, apart from the possibility of patents expiring.

Samsung could have had a cross licensing agreement with Nokia, meaning Microsoft was getting paid twice. Also the US IP law has become more hostile to abstract patents, which probably form the bulk of Microsofts patent portfolio. Ironically Microsoft has probably picked up a bunch of Nokia patents, which may be much more useful in a patent slinging fight.

Re:Change of circumstances/ (2)

Insomnium (1415023) | about 3 months ago | (#47585823)

AFAIK microsoft did not get any nokia patents with the buyout. As such nokia has left the market and samsung can no longer cross license with nokia, instead have to pay them and have to rethink their spending on frivolous microsoft patents.

In my opinion, keeping patents secret while saying someone is infridging one should be sued for libel or similar. If a company wants royalties from patents, they should say how much and from which patents. For a long time companies just say "they are infridging" and do not specify and are not called out on their bullshit. Top that with tons of obvious patents that should never have been granted. The system is fundamentally broken.

Re:Change of circumstances/ (1)

maroberts (15852) | about 3 months ago | (#47585989)

A quick Google reveals Microsoft got 8,500 design patents and a license to 30,000 (!) utility patents

Re:Change of circumstances/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47587057)

All of the details of those Microsoft patents - it's all available to the public. Anyone can sit down and read through them all.

But the problem is --- when Microsoft collects on its "Android patents", they never say exactly which patents they're talking about!

It's a case of "Hand over the money and make it snappy or we'll sue you into the ground!".

That should be illegal, and they should be prosecuted for it and punished!

Re:Change of circumstances/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47588063)

It is public now. And Samsung may be getting ready to eliminate most of them.

  http://images.mofcom.gov.cn/pep/201404/20140408143159274.docx

Re:Change of circumstances/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47588425)

For a long time companies just say "they are infridging" and do not specify and are not called out on their bullshit.

It when they outfridge the problem comes up. Things start smelling bad after being out at room temperature for a while.

Dark matter dispute (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about 3 months ago | (#47585479)

Not much can be known about it at this time.
That means we'll all have to go by our hunches and reflexes, and totally tear apart Microsoft.

M$ is desperate over its failing Vista 9 and Xbone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47585753)

The execs at M$ are shitting their pants over the anticipation of their failed Vista 9 and Xbone just as Xbox 360 and Vista 6, 7, and 8 all have failed M$. As such, M$ is fighting Samdung over the Tivoized GNU/Linux kernal used for android. This only proves M$ fears the revolution of the free software movement and they also fear competition of their other failed endeavor, Windoze phone and they will fight to keep their illegal monopoly by wasting the court's time with frivilous lawsuits. M$ should have been broken up but Shrub and his cronies such as Sweaty B made sure M$ would only get a slap on the wrist. It is high time M$ faces a lawsuit to not break them up, but to have their corporate charter revoked permanently.

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

Timewarp to 2003 (1, Interesting)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 3 months ago | (#47586247)

The execs at M$ are shitting their pants over the anticipation of their failed Vista 9...

Hold on there tiger. I admire your spunk, and if this was the heady days of the Desktop, your post makes sense....except this is the failure of Heavyweight OS Vista, Windows/Office/IE Monopoly+Lock-in ,anti GPL source, profit hungry CEO in the New Personal Computing which includes mobile. The old model model was so effective at crushing everyone, was so trivial to outmanoeuvre by Google who are more nimbler/cheaper/OS friendly/ and cant be bullied or bribed, and is a better partner than someone who is your *direct* competitor, and charges you for the privilege.

If Microsoft had created a lightweight OS,platform independent tools and split up, been License agnostic, and been innovation hungry, we wouldn't be in a discussion where Samsung is not interested in paying "in kind" for for Windows Phone licenses it doesn't want to use.

The irony of your post is you don't understand the $ is your Micro$oft, Vista 9(sic) or Windows 8.X whatever is not only a massive success (from revenue not technical perspective) it has turned back its plummeting sales....by throwing its current (XP) customers under the bus....classic Microsoft.

People all over are arguing the *new* boss is different, and some signs are (maybe) there, Office on Android...One OS(if it means the speculated modular OS), but this is not anything like Microsoft "Shitting their pants) this is Microsoft acting like the arrogant bullying monopolist...only without the stick of and carrot of being the only vendor. It is simply another competitor...and a small one...Samsung is more worried about those damned Chinese manufactures.

Re:Timewarp to 2003 (2)

Dutch Gun (899105) | about 3 months ago | (#47587137)

People all over are arguing the *new* boss is different.

When the new boss quickly laid off a huge percentage of the workforce and used the term "synergies" three times in the e-mail that informed them of those layoffs, it pretty much told me all I needed to know.

Re: Timewarp to 2003 (0)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 3 months ago | (#47587481)

I admire your spunk

Get a room!

M$ Astroturfers come in all forms (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47588417)

M$ is shitting their pants, even when Sweaty B stepped down at M$. M$ is still obviously using multiple accounts [slashdot.org] to troll $lashdot which is nothing more than a shill piece for M$. While your mouth is sucking Sweaty B's cock your illegal monopoly is being threatened. M$ is still actively trying to protect their illegal monopoly through restricted boot as well as lawsuits. Given half the chance they will succeed in blockading any and all competitors just as they had before. Remember you adage, Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish,

--
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk
Friends do assist M$ addicted friends in committing suicide.

Re:Timewarp to 2003 (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#47591549)

Your forgot the failure of mobile and tablets too.

Seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586265)

Why I hope Samsung simply don't budge, take it to court, and give Microsoft what they deserve.

The patents are hot air in reality, Samsung have the means for a lengthy court battle with Microsoft (in fact, I'm not sure Microsoft have the means? dicey tactics there) - Samsung have no serious business dependencies on Microsoft - Samsung have no reason to put up with this, and every reason not to (is there any precedent for the kind of compensation a big corp can seek against a legal troll?)

So this is why my Republicans neighbors... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47586741)

are having a party. They love it when a company so dishonestly tries to compete. Their kind doesn't believe in competition so they are so happyy with Microsoft right now.

Summary silly -- Contracts are always voluntary (3, Informative)

Etherwalk (681268) | about 3 months ago | (#47587105)

"Samsung voluntarily entered into a legally binding contract..."

As opposed to what, being forced to sign under threat of listening to executive Karaoke?

Re:Summary silly -- Contracts are always voluntary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47587301)

Legally binding means that all of the formation requirements for contract were met. There are non-legally binding contracts.

OP is correct, you are not.

Re:Summary silly -- Contracts are always voluntary (2)

CaptQuark (2706165) | about 3 months ago | (#47587595)

There are plenty of cases where a contract is unenforceable and therefore not legally binding. http://www.nolo.com/legal-ency... [nolo.com]

~~

Re:Summary silly -- Contracts are always voluntary (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47587875)

No, that is a legally binding contract where a valid defense renders the defendant able to partially or completely ignore the agreement. The FORMATION is what creates the valid presumption of binding.

From your article on NOLO:
" But it's possible for an otherwise valid contract to be found unenforceable in the eyes of the law"

In other words, it is possible for a legally binding contract formed in a perfectly correct way, to be unenforceable due to defenses to the performance of the contract. For example, duress admits the contract is a well-formed document, but that it is unenforceable due to the condition of the parties at the time of formation.

The parties are bound, but performance is not necessary. Very different than an invalid formation leading to no legal contract.

Have a nice day.

boycott MS products (1)

ruir (2709173) | about 3 months ago | (#47591557)

Thats exactly what I do.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?