Chrome mentioned in Microsoft's latest patent deal

wikipedia wrote:A protection racket is an extortion scheme whereby a criminal group or individual coerces other less powerful entities to pay money, allegedly for protection services against external threats (usually violence or property damage). Many racketeers will coerce potential clients into buying protection through property damage or other harassment. In most cases, the racketeers do little to protect the client from other predators, and their "protection" is little more than extortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Nice one :D

Cringely wrote:At the end of the day this deal isn’t about royalties. It is about trying to kill Android.

http://www.cringely.com/2011/07/the-enemy-of-my-enemy/

http://www.zdnet.com.au/google-lawsuits-to-follow-nortel-pat...

No, no, you're wrong. MSFT wouldn't pull legal shenanigans to get Windows Mobile as a de facto "standard", thus extending their monopoly to yet another market. Why, MSFT is as upright and moral as the day is long. They love to win on merit, they are competitive tigers, just waiting to innovate and pounce on a new idea and LET THE MARKET DECIDE.

Killing Android is not enough for MS and will not rest until Google is gone or at least marginalized. Google is a formidable competition to MS on many fronts.

MS is taking the opportunity, while Google is busy with Oracle law suit, to prepare itself for a major legal battle. Google smartly doesn't want this battle because it is wining in the market by making its own products and services more dominant.

Google is killing MS in the services market, which eventually will destroy most MS products. The hundred millions MS is making here and there off Android are peanuts compared to what MS would lose by its products getting marginalized.

Besides, let's not forget that Google is also competing in other areas, like Facebook and possibly twitter.

Cringely is no fool.

jdixon wrote: Their hired bully got ran out of town on a rail by IBM. They're being far more careful now.

Plus Red Hat, whose suit for declarative judgment helped derail their railroading effort. I'm hoping to see one or more of these handset makers collude with Google to do a preeemptive declarative-judgment strike like that, to reduce the cloud of patent FUD to hard facts. So far, though, it seems, all of the handset makers are too used to paying MS-tax to seriously consider being Google's stalking horse. Pity, that.

Come to think of it, all Google has to do is put out to market one more limited-edition Google/Android handset, nominally to serve as standard-bearer for a defined feature-set. As long as it's limited-edition, it's not a true competitive threat to the other handset makers, but then Google has a dog in that fight and can sue for declarative judgment themselves. Or do I have the legal logic wrong there, Dino?

"conservative arts education"

Thank-you, Dino. My oxymoron collection has been languishing, neglected on an unconnected hard-drive, for lack of new specimens... I guess I'll have to dig it out of the closet again...

:-P

@cr -

I'm not really sure what would be required from Google. They aren't required to make a phone in order to infringe -- or, more pointedly -- to be accused of infringing Microsoft's patents.

So far as I know, Microsoft hasn't accused Google of infringing any patents, but, by inference they have, and, Google is the one who developed Android, so, if phone companies using Android infringe Microsoft patents, Google must. About the only exception to that I can imagine is if Microsoft doesn't claim any violation by Android, but that running Android on a phone violates a patent. That's a bit far-fetched.

I don't know what type of arrangement Google has with the phone manufacturers, but they don't seems to be paying Google any compensation for using Android. So why should Google defend them against MS?

Android is gaining more popularity every day, and MS hasn't been able to do anything to derail it so far. Google is very pleased with that, so why should they create trouble for them selves when they don't need to? Why should they disturb a good going trend, especially if there is no compensation for losses? I thing they are working of a smart strategy.

When Android is more dominant and Google is making substantial amount of money to make it worth while to face MS, then it would make much sense to face and stop MS patent shenanigans and get compensated for the losses.

At this time, I believe MS doesn't want to sue Google just yet, and Google doesn't want to face MS just yet either. We just have to wait and see.

> Are we off-topic yet?

Check the link before deciding whether the poem is off topic or not, then decide whether a true liberal arts education would include exposure to the ideas expressed in the poem.

@fettoosh --

There actually is a reason for Google to seek a declaratory judgment, presuming that's what their lawyers would advise.

In patent law, you can infringe in a number of ways, but you can't make the person whose patents you infringe sue you. However, so long as you have been served notice of the patents (which is why they mark physical things with patent numbers), you are liable for damages from the time you started to infringe. In theory, Microsoft could just sit back and let its potential award grow and grow and grow. A declaratory judgment is a way to stop that from happening -- you get the patent declared invalid, or get a determination that you aren't infringing it.

@jdixon: Hm, you could be right. It's been years since I last went Kipling, and the Kipple then was "The Forbidden Song" from the short story "Easy As ABC". I just know that gelding Danes is bound to make a lot of Danish women unhappy.

[edit: fixed story title]

> It's been years since I last went Kipling

Suffice it to say that the ideas expressed in the poem bear directly on whether a company should pay a royalty or fight the case in court.

@Dino,

So MS has no reason to rush into suing since waiting would possibly increase the reward. In addition to that, it presumably is getting fees from various vendors. So why should it sue Google now? There is no reason to rush.

On the other hand, Google is not suing for some reason(s). What could those reason(s) be? Here are some thoughts

a) They are certain they don't infringe on any of MS disclosed patents, or they can invalidate them, or some how they can work around them when the time comes. Keep in mind that MS didn't disclose all the patents they believe are being infringed upon by Android and they can't claim they notified Google about all of them.

b) Google are too busy now they prefer to leave it until it is more appropriate for them.

c) Since MS is getting compensated by the various vendors, Google wouldn't be liable for the same infringements. Are they correct?

d) Since Android is based on Linux, which is Free software, is Google liable for any infringement in the Linux code, or Linux is? And, since Google is giving Android for free, would they still be liable for damages?

We know Google can afford the best lawyers possible, do you think they are making the biggest mistake ever? I certainly hope not.

@fettoosh --

It could be that they would like to see another case go to the Supreme Court -- the most recent SCOTUS decision was not very encouraging to holders of software patents. For the same reason, Microsoft would probably like to lock up all the deals it can berfore a decision comes out that devalues its portfolio.

Quoting:It could be that they would like to see another case go to the Supreme Court

Good point Dino. And it does stink watching MS having a field day coercing everyone and anyone.

Quoting: In theory, Microsoft could just sit back and let its potential award grow and grow and grow.

Laches, Dino,... Laches. If they sit on their hands too long, they just may be considered "unclean." There are limits to predatory procrastination...

"Sitting on their hands" is just one missing letter away from "dirty hands".

Completely unintentional (cough, cough, NOT, cough).

JaseP --

Have you ever heard of laches being applied when there are unexpired patents?

Yes...

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2005/09/appeals_court_a....

@JaseP -

I stand -- informed. Thanks.

However, that was a pretty extreme case, and the opinion makes clear that laches will not ordinarily be available as a defense against patent enforcement.

Still -- good to know. I'll bet there are still a few "old rules" patents out there that might have had the benefit of an abusive application process.

Quoting: However, that was a pretty extreme case,...

Yeah, but so is your hypothetical fact pattern... M$ doesn't seem to be waiting it out though,... They appear to be pretty offensive (this pun, also intended).

@JaseP --

No, they're not. My guess is they're not in a hurry to face somebody who can fight them off, though.