Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android [LWN.net]

Microsoft has announced the filing of a lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn, and Inventec, alleging patent infringement in the Android-based Nook ebook reader. "The patents at issue cover a range of functionality embodied in Android devices that are essential to the user experience, including: natural ways of interacting with devices by tabbing through various screens to find the information they need; surfing the Web more quickly, and interacting with documents and e-books." Information on the specific patents involved is not yet available.

Update: ZDNet has a list of the patents at issue.

to post comments

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 21, 2011 20:33 UTC (Mon) by dan_linder (guest, #88) [Link] (10 responses)

I hope this doesn't settle out of court. I don't think B&N wants to have their Nook reader torn away from them without a fight. I don't know how deep Foxconn or Inventecs' pockets are, so the only listed company who might want to settle rather than go to court would probably be Microsoft.

Of course, the settlement with B&N may be to pay a minimal fee to MS for each Nook reader sold and then MS can say that they "won" the battle.

I hope B&N can get Google to come on too. Let's settle this patent problem once and for all.

If not, it'll draw attention to the fact that patents are not for the "small inventor" anymore...

Dan

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:01 UTC (Mon) by leomilano (guest, #32220) [Link] (2 responses)

I would suspect MS's main goal is to spread FUD about Android. They "partnered" with Novell just to do that with Linux, and now they "partnered" with NOKIA [1] to bully their way into the mobile arena. It only makes sense for them to attack Android in this context.

[1] If you visit www.nokia.com as of this writing (and for the last few days), the most prominent word you see is MICROSOFT all in capital letters.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 21, 2011 23:02 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (1 responses)

Where I'm surfing from there's a prominent banner which reads "Nokia + Microsoft. Join the discussion!" Once again, the people in charge of some corporate image have failed to understand some fundamental principle of communication. In this case: that you only put that kind of thing in that kind of position if you've just announced a merger or acquisition. But I suppose such people claim to know what they're doing, so we should just let them get on with it.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 4:20 UTC (Tue) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]

Nokia's admitting what it is: One of the most inexpensive acquisitions of a major multinational corporation in history.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 21, 2011 21:40 UTC (Mon) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (2 responses)

i would think BN will almost certainly settle and obtain a license...it looks like HTC is already a licensee. with the nook in a tough competitive position to the kindle, i doubt BN wants to divert too much energy to litigating

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:51 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

It's hard to imagine that Barnes & Noble has patents over which it can countersue, and there isn't just the HTC example but also Amazon.com, which already pays Microsoft royalties on the Kindle. That's obviously B&N's closest competitor.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 6:40 UTC (Wed) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link]

HTC is an odd case since HTC also make Windows phones. In fact, I think they have the most Windows 7 phone models out right now. "Extracting" the license agreement from them was probably not that difficult

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:40 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (3 responses)

B&N will hardly "get Google to come on too." With 500-odd patents, most of them just search-related, Google is too weak to have an impact in such a dispute.

Yesterday's lawsuits (a federal suit and an ITC complaint) take the number of Android-related patent lawsuits up to 37. If Google had the ability to show some authority with its own patents, many of those would never have been filed in the first place.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 0:32 UTC (Wed) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link] (2 responses)

"With 500-odd patents, most of them just search-related, Google is too weak to have an impact in such a dispute."

This is bullshit.

Are you aware of Google's company portfolio ?

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 7:05 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

This is bullshit. Are you aware of Google's company portfolio ?

I am perfectly aware, you are not, which doesn't of course prevent you from writing a comment like that. Plus, I am civilized while you are not.

So, here are the facts why Google's patent portfolio is far too weak to protect Android. That article contains links to the USPTO database and to useful statistics. Google is a patent dwarf.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 24, 2011 4:06 UTC (Thu) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link]

I don't follow any link of yours. Keep it for you as you like it and let's also note that company's goodwill and popularity is not measured by the patents they hold.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 21, 2011 23:34 UTC (Mon) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link] (11 responses)

The target here is actually intriguing. The Nook does not officially run all the Google Inc. Android add-ons (market, maps, etc.) It just runs a custom stack based on the Android Open Source Project. And this is likely a heavy trend: lots of manufacturers are interested in having a touch-based device which may not necessarily serve as a phone/tablet nor be sold by an MNO. So is this a "message" to everyone out there thinking about putting Android in their embedded device to think twice?

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 0:17 UTC (Tue) by daney (guest, #24551) [Link]

Maybe the "message" is a bit more general than that. Perhaps: Everyone thinking about any device (android/non-android, embedded/non-embedded) needs to think twice.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:43 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (9 responses)

To many device makers, Android is a nightmare as far as patent litigation (now 37 Android-related lawsuits) is concerned. Of course, intellectual property issues are only one part of the consideration. Up to a certain point they may just look at a seemingly free and open (in reality, neither free nor fully open) offering as an attractive choice, especially as long as consumers like it. 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, 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.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:57 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link] (3 responses)

Florian: Care to disclose any conflicts of interest you may have? So far you have not disputed that you are being paid to sow FUD against Android and/or Google.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:59 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

I just answered that question yesterday in the Bionic discussion; the one who asked appreciated the answer; so I fail to see why you bring this up here other than trying to troll me, perhaps.

I have no conflicts of interest to disclose, period.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 21:17 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

Who cares? This sort of attack is getting boring. It is happening more and more here at LWN, by a variety of people. Please be aware that, due to the distributed nature of the attacks, unlike the person you are attacking, it is very hard to filter, and may become unpleasant for others.

If someone is making bogus points because of their affiliations, then the bogus points should speak for themselves, no? Pointing out their supposed affiliations does nothing for those of us who use logic in evaluating comments. Please recognize that this type of attack is itself appealing to fear.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 15:19 UTC (Wed) by michel (guest, #10186) [Link]

It matters.

Ask yourself that if you were a medical professional and you go to a conference where another professional in the field talks about a new treatment option which seems to provide great benefits for a disease, with much factual data to support it's efficacy, wouldn't you like to know if that person was paid by the manufacturer of that treatment? It won't change the facts and it all maybe very much above reproach, but having that information will make you wonder if there may not be other facts that are *not* being disclosed.

Mr. Mueller certainly knows a lot more about patents than I do, but so far I've seen just two statements from him about this:
> On my blog and in discussions like I express exclusively my own beliefs, and that's all I have to say about that.
and
>I have no conflicts of interest to disclose, period.
Neither of those (in my opinion) are really a clear statement. I would probably want to know 'does Mr. Mueller receive any compensation from a company that has a substantial patent portfolio'? To me that is important to know because it will shape how I read and interpret his arguments. And not having seen that statement, will make me assume that he has and shape my interpretation accordingly. But that's clearly my choice. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Mueller does not have any obligation to disclose anything.

That does not mean his arguments are invalid, his analysis of the *presented* facts are faulty, or that he's lying.

Having said all that, I do find myself caring less and less about his posts and the ensuing spam fest that seems to follow. But I do like freedom of expression, and I can *choose* to listen, or not.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 23:38 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link] (1 responses)

>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.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 6:57 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Now can you substantiate that [neither free nor fully open] *without* referring to a certain blog ?

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.

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).

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.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 14:13 UTC (Wed) by southey (guest, #9466) [Link] (2 responses)

In your responses, you keep ignoring that this suit has zero to do with Android and would occur for any OS such as Palm, Symbian and Blackberry if these got or had gotten sufficient successful. This suit has everything to do with market competition. Just look at who is suing who as probably Apple and Microsoft have some deal not to sue each other yet. These are just scare/fud tactics to bully companies into their products while these companies think that they can get away with it.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 14:19 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

In your responses, you keep ignoring that this suit has zero to do with Android and would occur for any OS such as Palm, Symbian and Blackberry if these got or had gotten sufficient successful

You're just wrong on both counts:

I did point out on my blog (when I published the infographic of the 37 Android lawsuits) that market share is a factor here.
However, my blog post also explains why it's just one factor, and there are Android-specific reasons, particularly Google's weak patent portfolio (the best way to deal with other industry players) and the fact that Google doesn't do inbound licensing (the only option when dealing with non-practicing entities).

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 14:20 UTC (Wed) by karim (subscriber, #114) [Link]

This sounds pretty reasonable indeed. This likely has more to do with possibility/probability of extracting marginal percentage from other companies' success than with technical reasons. Thinking likely goes something like: we own patents they seem to be using, they're making money, let's ask them to share some of it. Probably makes tons of sense from the shareholder perspective ... despite giving engineers and developers nausea and heart-attacks.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 0:56 UTC (Tue) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Well that's depressing. What a asshole company.

Make the Patent War Graph a complete graph!

Posted Mar 22, 2011 1:06 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (1 responses)

How long till the Patent War Graph becomes a complete graph (i.e. everyone suing everyone)? My bet is 5 years.

Make the Patent War Graph a complete graph!

Posted Mar 22, 2011 2:02 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

Already seems pretty close...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/nov/01/sma...
(graphic from Nov 2010, so way out of date by now).

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 3:47 UTC (Tue) by AndreE (guest, #60148) [Link] (2 responses)

Wait so you can now obtain a patent on "natural " ways of interacting? What a complete joke. If it is so natural how exactly is it inventive or novel? This system is completely broken

On the stupidity of patents on "natural ways" of doing things

Posted Mar 22, 2011 9:17 UTC (Tue) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link]

The "best" patents are those that describe natural things, because then everybody will have to walk that path and tumble down the rabbit hole.

But I agree with you, if it's natural, then it requires no engineering and not much thinking, so the patent protects a "good idea that everybody has" rather than a complex design that took years and money to come up with, thus impeding further invention.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 15:00 UTC (Tue) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

my initial thought too.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 4:17 UTC (Tue) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link] (1 responses)

For some time now, I was waiting for a large scale patent war with Ms playing an important rule on it. The Nokia agreement could only mean something big will happen soon.
All I wish now, is that at the end of the "war" open source emerges as the clean winner, and the patent trolls as the losers.
amen

Oh, it will happen, but the victory will be Pyrrhic...

Posted Mar 22, 2011 8:42 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

All I wish now, is that at the end of the "war" open source emerges as the clean winner, and the patent trolls as the losers.

Are your really sure you want to see that? History does not repeat itself but it rhymes so it's good to know it. The good example is chemical industry.
1862: Britich control 50% of world market, French - 40%, Swiss and German are marginal players.
1873: German companies have 50% of the world market, French, Swiss and British have between 13% and 17% each.
1913: German firms control 80% of the world market, Swiss - about 8% and the rest of the world is the remaining 2%.

Today we have the same story with software. Only place of Gernamy is taken by China. Eventually open source will win (kinda) and trolls will lose (kinda) because software development will mostly move to China (and may be India). Why do I say trolls will kinda lose? Well - they will still have a viable "business" even when software development will happen in China and most of software will not be importable to US, but it'll not matter as much because most of world economy will be in China (and may be India) anyway. Why do I say open software will kinda win? Well, Chinese firms will use open software where available but they will use proprietary software too - and more often then not they will just ignore software licenses so GPL will not matter anymore...

The whole patent hoopla is suicide move - but sadly it's suicide for industry and country, not for induvidual company, so Microsoft will not backpedal... It makes perfect sense for any induvidual company because it increases piece of pie it gets... even if it reduces the size of the pie.

P.S. I still hope something will stop death spiral: is it really true that century and half have not taught us anything WRT patents? I expect not. But so far we are firmly on this suicide route.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 8:43 UTC (Tue) by pauliusz (guest, #49461) [Link] (3 responses)

I really hope there will be a trial and these patents will be invalidated, because they are one of the most absurd I have ever seen.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 10:32 UTC (Tue) by renox (guest, #23785) [Link]

> I really hope there will be a trial and these patents will be invalidated, because they are one of the most absurd I have ever seen.

Very unlikely.

In the (very unlikely) case that BN resist too much (which would be very costly for them) and are on the verge of invalidating MS's patents, MS would probably just offer very good conditions for an out of court settlement.

The settlement would be of course under NDA, so MS would keep their patents and the FUD which comes with these..

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:47 UTC (Tue) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] (1 responses)

Compared to the completely laughable Google Doodle patent that Google obtained today (after a 10-year process), any patent on a user interface element is innovation deserving of a Nobel Prize. Also, Microsoft has already asserted 23 patents against Motorola. Only 1 of those is part of the 5 asserted against Motorola. So just counting the ones asserted against Motorola but not yet against Barnes & Noble et al., it would be easy for Microsoft to field more patents anytime. Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec have seen now that Microsoft is determined to assert its rights, and that message doesn't depend on exactly which 5 patents -- or how many -- were asserted in the initial complaints.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 23:33 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

http://lwn.net/Articles/434587/

You know they may pay you, but you'll never have their respect.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 10:42 UTC (Tue) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106) [Link] (8 responses)

Doing some spot checking my this-is-stupid sense is tingling. The 372 patent seems to cover just about any web browser. The 780 patent covers a using a "loading" animation as a placeholder icon.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 12:01 UTC (Tue) by sgros (guest, #36440) [Link] (7 responses)

It seems to me that all these lawsuits have only one goal for those that sue and that are sued... to whom will some profit go or who will keep some extra profit. No matter what the outcome is, in the end, consumers will always have to pay...

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 18:18 UTC (Tue) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link] (6 responses)

That's the sad real true and nobody see, nobody care.

Every company is competing with an objective: gain user preference with the best balance among selling price vs quality. No one can sell for less than total cost plus a profit margin.

When an exogenous factor is added to cost, like the M$ tax, legal expenses, lobbying expenses and the like, the compensations are: less quality (cost reduction), less profit, higher selling prices. These measures damage the technological development because funds available and motivation for R&D will be less (why shall I make an effort to invent if I know that my invention will be stolen by a shark?)

Those who collect the proceeds from royalties will not do R%D because is useless. The monopoly position allow to simply don't care. That is the reason why Windows XP had the ridicule life time of around 10 years, was replaced by a worst and mediocre OS (Vista) and at the end Windows 7 was an improvement only because someone felt some fear when both Apple and Linux showed capable of advancing in that core market.

Android / Chrome / linux / open source, have a huge potential to threaten the Microsoft's core and peripheral business. They don't need to compete doing better. Its more cost effective for them to spread FUD by litigating. Money is an asset and they have lots of it. The competitors do not. Then they use it to compete.

The consumers will pay again. More for worst, at each gadget purchase.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 20:02 UTC (Tue) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link] (5 responses)

>No one can sell for less than total cost plus a profit margin.

Have you checked the price of a browser recently?

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 21:02 UTC (Tue) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link] (1 responses)

If it's free, it isn't sold.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 22:22 UTC (Tue) by klbrun (subscriber, #45083) [Link]

But it is not free to develop a browser. A commercial company providing a browser for free is operating at a loss. Of course, it is sometimes in the strategic interest of the company to do so; presumably profits in other areas make up for the loss. I have heard it is common in retail to have a "loss leader" to bring in customers, who then also buy regular priced items.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 22, 2011 22:22 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Or the price of beer in the UK?

Several supermarkets are allegedly selling it for less than the taxes on it.

Cheers,
Wol

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 23, 2011 9:16 UTC (Wed) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]

> Have you checked the price of a browser recently?

Have you checked the price of malware recently?

Sad as it sounds: browsers are taking the place of malware more and more. "Loss leaders" is the technical term, AFAIR.

Yes, the intentions of the Mozilla Foundation may be laudable (and they are buying us a couple of years: hadn't Microsoft busted it by killing Netscape off too early, in its unlimited greed, we'd possibly be at that point by now), but the vulnerability of this whole construction to corporate greed is just mind-numbing:

Users are not the clients. Users are the wares.

Microsoft sues Barnes and Noble over Android

Posted Mar 24, 2011 4:09 UTC (Thu) by forlwn (guest, #63934) [Link]

That's like the coffee and sugar. You pay the first and get the second but you cannot ask for the later and leave.
Firefox is free but is useless without an os.