| |||||||||||||
Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over AndroidMicrosoft sues Barnes and Noble over AndroidPosted Mar 22, 2011 23:38 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335)In reply to: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android by FlorianMueller Parent article: Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android
>To many device makers, Android is a nightmare as far as patent litigation (now 37 Android-related lawsuits) is concerned.
Citation needed. I doubt it's pleasant for those device makers, but without proper citation it's hard to know whether they consider it "a nightmare" or an expected annoyance, business as usual.
>Of course, intellectual property issues are only one part of the consideration.
You mean software patent issues here, right ?
>Up to a certain point they may just look at a seemingly free and open
but "Its not like Androids free.", right ? Who was it again that said that ? Looked a little like Gene Simmons, but shinier.
>(in reality, neither free nor fully open)
Now can you substantiate that *without* referring to a certain blog ?
>offering as an attractive choice, especially as long as consumers like it.
and maybe it will remain so, because it is, in fact, very popular. So even after paying all these potential patent taxes, device manufacturers would still come out ahead. So until the dust settles and the true extent of this economic burden of software patents is known, it's no use trying to disuade manufacturers not to use android and implicitly to opt for a "safer" competitor (which is the elephant in the room in your argument).
>But if the 37 Android-related suits that have already been filed have to be settled, plus the many more that will likely be filed this year,
then they might still get the better deal.
>it's hard to see how Android will be economically far less attractive because of the need to dole out $5 to patent holder A, $10 to B, $15 to C, $12 to D, etc.
Not hard at all. Trolls, like parasites, want their host to be popular and widespread. Killing it off by leeching too much is bad business.
Maybe you're right after all, and android is just not "safe". But there are a lot of 'ifs' in your scenario I'm not willing to take at face value.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android Posted Mar 23, 2011 6:57 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Since these are complex issues, it's more efficient to link to write-ups on them than to go into every detail in a comment here. About "free", you could see Microsoft's statement on the Barnes & Noble suit, which mentioned that many others including Amazon.com and HTC already pay royalties to them and they expect everyone else to pay. Then you look at the 37 Android-related patent lawsuits taking place already (plus there will be many more, I'm sure), and many if not most or even all of those will result in royalty-bearing license deals. It doesn't matter who previously said that Android isn't free. If it isn't, it isn't. If someone I don't agree with on something else tells me the Earth is round, the answer isn't that it's "flat". It's that he's right, it's round, and I still beg to differ on other issues. Concerning Android's openness, just look at the Skyhook case, where Google bullied Motorola and Samsung to prevent them from using a competing geotagging solution.
I'm not dissuading anyone. I look at what's going on and analyze it. All it takes is a few patent holders successfully collecting $10 or $20 on each device, and the end user price of a device goes up $100 or more. If Google had a strong patent portfolio, it could solve some of this through cross-licensing, but with 500-odd patents it's not a serious player in that game. Those are facts that I'm perfectly entitled to analyze and discuss. Just like you're entitled to a different expecation. The assumption that those 37 patent lawsuits are just all going to go away without substantial implications for the competitiveness of Android is, however, very unrealistic.
|
|||||||||||||