Is this PowerPoint’s Revenge?

A 29-page slide deck — made public this week in Microsoft’s patent lawsuit against Barnes & Noble — outlines, in great detail, the bookseller’s objections to the software company’s campaign to collect patent licensing fees from Android device makers.

According to the cover page, the presentation was given by Barnes & Noble’s lawyers to Justice Department antitrust officials this summer.

Keeping in mind that Microsoft has a very different view of these things, here is the B&N presentation, filed by the company as an exhibit with the International Trade Commission this week. See this previous post for the Redmond company’s response to the overall filing.

INDEX: Pages 1-5 below | 6-10 | 10-15 | 16-20 | 21-25 | 26-29





INDEX: Pages 1-5 | 6-10 | 10-15 | 16-20 | 21-25 | 26-29

Comments

  • Guest

    It’s funny how people complain about Microsoft doing this, but when companies sue Microsoft for the same thing and win, people cheer.  You can’t have it both ways.

    • Anonymous

      Have u read the article? Have u, just a clue, of the bad and criminal behaviour of Micro$oft? I guess NO …

      • MicrosoftFTW

        Since when did the definition of “criminal behavior” change to “getting paid for your intellectual property that other people are ripping off”?

        • Guest

          Mike, I’ve found it’s not a good idea to engage a man who cannot spell “you” or “Microsoft.” This man is clearly deranged and should be isolated. I’ve already asked Disqus to do so.

        • Guest

          Mike, I’ve found it’s not a good idea to engage a man who cannot spell “you” or “Microsoft.” This man is clearly deranged and should be isolated. I’ve already asked Disqus to do so.

        • Anonymous

          wait, so we’re not suing microsoft for copying Java deliberately and creating .net, followed by a gigantic settlement worded as “please don’t (beat us in court)” because it was a guaranteed win?? That’s not ripping off, that’s straight up illegal, by the way. ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine

          because I think you have this completely backwards, or you just don’t like the history of the antitrust behind microsoft.

          Also, there are legal forms of copying, which are not “ripping off”. Microsoft does them and says nothing, but cries like a little child for anyone daring, just daaaring to do it!

          Hint: guess why there’s no suit against google for their market update that copied the windows 8 style? because MS is *deathly* afraid of a lawsuit with google because they will immediately be questioned on antitrust.

          Microsoft is losing relevance.

          • ComeOn

            Microsoft has payed some big amounts in the past for several such patent claims against it. If that was OK then this is OK as well. You think no one in the idustry has ever copied Microsoft ?? using windows is so common that several things from it have become obvious in nature and we just don’t realize that Microsoft has actually come up with those features or actions.
            With Microsoft spending billions in research they have to come up with something usefull out of that. I find it hard to beleive that what ever they have built so far is just ripping off others. Come on not even a hater can claim that.
            And the entire PPT is about the authors point of view of how Microsoft is anticompetitve but doesn’t provide a decent counter argument for the claims. Presenting the same point from several different angles fulfils the purpose of volume rather than quality.
            You may hate the patent system as is but it does sever a purpose, sometimes it is in your favour and sometimes it is not.
            Googles has innovated in some places but the majority of its supposed innovation is copying and there is no denying it, an open minded observer can see that straight away.
            So just pay what is due and do your business you can’t have it both ways.

          • http://profiles.google.com/daengbo Daniel Bo

            There have been a few crap patent claims, but most of MS’s payouts have been due to contract issues (i.e. “partnering” with a company that had tech MS needed, getting deep knowledge of the tech, then breaking the contract and building something identical in house). 

          • ComeOn

            Microsoft has payed some big amounts in the past for several such patent claims against it. If that was OK then this is OK as well. You think no one in the idustry has ever copied Microsoft ?? using windows is so common that several things from it have become obvious in nature and we just don’t realize that Microsoft has actually come up with those features or actions.
            With Microsoft spending billions in research they have to come up with something usefull out of that. I find it hard to beleive that what ever they have built so far is just ripping off others. Come on not even a hater can claim that.
            And the entire PPT is about the authors point of view of how Microsoft is anticompetitve but doesn’t provide a decent counter argument for the claims. Presenting the same point from several different angles fulfils the purpose of volume rather than quality.
            You may hate the patent system as is but it does sever a purpose, sometimes it is in your favour and sometimes it is not.
            Googles has innovated in some places but the majority of its supposed innovation is copying and there is no denying it, an open minded observer can see that straight away.
            So just pay what is due and do your business you can’t have it both ways.

        • Fie

          The logicial conclusion enslaves humanity. How is MS getting paid for their sitting on their collective asses for the rest of eternity somehow good for all of us?

          • testing123

            Oh I’m sorry, I forgot about the ‘for the good of humanity’ clause within patent law.

            Oh wait.. 

            Patent law needs to be revamped, but don’t hate the player, hate the game.

            Microsoft is 100% within its rights to pursue those infringing on their technology.

            They are licensing these deals, they are not attempting to bar passage of devices into countries in which they do business.

            Wake up and smell the coffee, because what we see here exists in EVERY industry. Pretending as though Android deserves a free lunch or that open source implies unencumbered is laughable at best.

            Its not possible to create a mobile OS which will cover at least 50 thousand patents without infringing.

      • testing123

        Yes i read this drivel, was great for a good pre-coffee morning laugh.

        3/4 of the presentation outlines previous judgments against Microsoft in which they have already settled.(i.e they are completely irrelevant)

        Even worse is one or two of those ‘trivial’ patents have previously been upheld in a court of law. (mainly because they are not trivial, and pass the ‘non obvious’ test)

        Clearly the patent system is broken, and some of those patents should never have been allowed, but some do hold some merit, and would most likely be valid even if the patent system were rehaulted.

        This is a bad PR stunt, nothing more.

        The fact that B&N wants to sell their low margin tablets and pull a profit by selling books and software is not Microsoft’s problem.

    • Anonymous

      Have u read the article? Have u, just a clue, of the bad and criminal behaviour of Micro$oft? I guess NO …

    • Anonymous

      Someday maybe you will wake up and understand how much money Microsoft has stolen from you, how much they have lied to you and how they have prevented you from having devices that work correctly.  The CAFC and the patent office grant junk patents, Microsoft uses the cost of patent litigation as a club to destroy competition, and you are left with expensive junk that does not work right,  All so Microsoft can pick your pocket.  And still you defend these theives.

      • Anonymous

        Our patent system provides the basis for all of this bogus costly and time-wasting activity. It is all designed to keep the big players, with the deepest pockets, enriched and prevent true competition in the marketplace. Government for the Business, by the business. When will this incredible insanity stop? It is just so plain to see that software patents have no basis for validity at all. –Just another way to restrict basic freedoms of choice and competition.

      • Anonymous

        Our patent system provides the basis for all of this bogus costly and time-wasting activity. It is all designed to keep the big players, with the deepest pockets, enriched and prevent true competition in the marketplace. Government for the Business, by the business. When will this incredible insanity stop? It is just so plain to see that software patents have no basis for validity at all. –Just another way to restrict basic freedoms of choice and competition.

      • Anonymous

        Our patent system provides the basis for all of this bogus costly and time-wasting activity. It is all designed to keep the big players, with the deepest pockets, enriched and prevent true competition in the marketplace. Government for the Business, by the business. When will this incredible insanity stop? It is just so plain to see that software patents have no basis for validity at all. –Just another way to restrict basic freedoms of choice and competition.

    • Anonymous

      Someday maybe you will wake up and understand how much money Microsoft has stolen from you, how much they have lied to you and how they have prevented you from having devices that work correctly.  The CAFC and the patent office grant junk patents, Microsoft uses the cost of patent litigation as a club to destroy competition, and you are left with expensive junk that does not work right,  All so Microsoft can pick your pocket.  And still you defend these theives.

    • Anonymous

      say what? Microsoft hasn’t sued anyone for anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft has sued *everyone* for daring to be in the same market as them.

      So yes, when people sue microsoft? We cheer because they are a convicted antitrust monopoly who continually says “b.b…b..but we changed! forget history!”. It’s not an accident that they wanted to change legally found information in their last trial to be simply called “findings” instead of findings of facts, in the novell case.

    • Anonymous

      say what? Microsoft hasn’t sued anyone for anticompetitive behavior. Microsoft has sued *everyone* for daring to be in the same market as them.

      So yes, when people sue microsoft? We cheer because they are a convicted antitrust monopoly who continually says “b.b…b..but we changed! forget history!”. It’s not an accident that they wanted to change legally found information in their last trial to be simply called “findings” instead of findings of facts, in the novell case.

    • Fie

      That doesn’t make MS good you idiot.

    • Anonymous

      exactly… Google does all kind of evil…

      B&N are a bunch of clowns thinking they can simply steal patents…

      Grow up this is the land of big boys… Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft…

      No one gets to use their stuff for free.  Ask Apple they will sue you so fast your head will spin.

  • Guest

    It’s funny how people complain about Microsoft doing this, but when companies sue Microsoft for the same thing and win, people cheer.  You can’t have it both ways.

  • Steveintheukok

    Do you support the local cupcake shop, or the local mafia that take their cut and put fear into the shop owner? That is the way I see Microsoft, if they stopped bullying and started creating the great products THEY ARE capable of making, maybe we would be a lot kinder to them!

    • http://twitter.com/jbrianfrancis Brian Francis

      Did the Mafia develop the recipes used to make the cupcakes which the shop then used without permission to make a product that they sell to other people? 

      Microsoft invests in R & D to develop these patents – either through direct research or through acquisition of other companies.  Why should the output of these investments be allowed to be used without any compensation to the company that created them?  Microsoft has a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to protect their investments.

      • Guest

        “Microsoft invests R&D to develop these patents”.  As a developer, I can’t imagine how long it to to “develop” a “loading icon” on a browser screen (The effort to patent it was probably orders of magnitude greater than developing it).

        Really?  That’s the innovative R&D they want to get paid for?  Microsoft has failed to innovate over the last 15 years.  Windows 7 isn’t innovative (same pig, different lipstick), Microsoft office isn’t innovative (Are we STILL presenting in Powerpoint?). .NET is a joke (Didn’t java do this 20 years ago?).
        What year was it that windows decided to include/implement a firewall? Several decades after it was included in Linux.  Remember windows 3.0, and how “innovative” it was when NT added support for multiple users? Guess what, multi-user OS’s were out long before windows NT.  The examples are almost endless.They’re failing to innovate so they seek revenue streams from litigation.

        • Guest

          Ah, the lipstick on the pig troll. You really need some new material.

          • Guest

            First time I’ve visited this site actually

          • Guest

            Uh huh.

          • Guest

            Uh huh.

          • Guest

            way to ignore an argument.

            Remember the Mojave commercials microsoft aired? Where people were given Vista and told it was a new OS, to see if their perceptions could be easily changed by remarketing something old? A year or so you had Windows 7: Vista with a service pack, a facelift, and most importantly, a new name. Windows 7: Mojave.

            So even the extemely minor point about same pig different lipstick that you used to write off and entire post about the absurdity of calling an in-browser loading valuable intellectual property was a valid one.

            How about addressing the arguments instead playing attack the messenger and just re-stating the accusations of Microsoft’s lawyers and CEOs as if they were reliable unbiased source.

          • Guest

            way to ignore an argument.

            Remember the Mojave commercials microsoft aired? Where people were given Vista and told it was a new OS, to see if their perceptions could be easily changed by remarketing something old? A year or so you had Windows 7: Vista with a service pack, a facelift, and most importantly, a new name. Windows 7: Mojave.

            So even the extemely minor point about same pig different lipstick that you used to write off and entire post about the absurdity of calling an in-browser loading valuable intellectual property was a valid one.

            How about addressing the arguments instead playing attack the messenger and just re-stating the accusations of Microsoft’s lawyers and CEOs as if they were reliable unbiased source.

        • Guest

          Ah, the lipstick on the pig troll. You really need some new material.

      • Guest

        “Microsoft invests R&D to develop these patents”.  As a developer, I can’t imagine how long it to to “develop” a “loading icon” on a browser screen (The effort to patent it was probably orders of magnitude greater than developing it).

        Really?  That’s the innovative R&D they want to get paid for?  Microsoft has failed to innovate over the last 15 years.  Windows 7 isn’t innovative (same pig, different lipstick), Microsoft office isn’t innovative (Are we STILL presenting in Powerpoint?). .NET is a joke (Didn’t java do this 20 years ago?).
        What year was it that windows decided to include/implement a firewall? Several decades after it was included in Linux.  Remember windows 3.0, and how “innovative” it was when NT added support for multiple users? Guess what, multi-user OS’s were out long before windows NT.  The examples are almost endless.They’re failing to innovate so they seek revenue streams from litigation.

      • eleete

        Here is the remarkable difference… You cannot copyright nor patent a recipe. Don’t you find it slightly odd that congress has allowed BOTH for software, that is so closely modeled to reality ? These are not artists nor innovators, they are translators. You should really think that through.

      • eleete

        Here is the remarkable difference… You cannot copyright nor patent a recipe. Don’t you find it slightly odd that congress has allowed BOTH for software, that is so closely modeled to reality ? These are not artists nor innovators, they are translators. You should really think that through.

        • Guest

          (1) It was not Congress, but a court that allowed to patent software. There is a difference, isn’t it.

          (2) Actually, patent is a legal monopoly. However, patent can be lost exactly because of anti-competitive behavior of owner. The monopoly is legal in the USA. They are prohibited certain kinds of practices although. B&N makes a case that MS abuses its monopoly position (again, or should I say again and again?).

        • Guest

          (3) Oh, BTW: recipes are protected by copyright, apparently. Chefs and restaurants are closely guarding them, and there were quite a few cases in courts.

      • Philip Abrahamson

        If all that R&D is so wonderful, why isn’t Microsoft number 1. in the phone market?

      • http://nucco.org Fanen A.

        It’s ridiculous that you are defending Microsoft on the basis of the patents it has cited in its case against B&N. They don’t stand up to the non-obviousness requirement, and are worded vaguely to apply to virtually anything.

        Icons and background images, manipulating information in a data structure… wow. Its pathetic that huge sums of money are being wasted on trivial issues like those.

        D. Knuth and E. W. Dijkstra would probably be the wealthiest men on the planet if they cared to patent their algorithms back in the day.

        • ChuckOp

          I’m sure then you were first in line arguing about the patents that Microsoft was sued against.  I have no idea if these patents are valid and you probably don’t either.  But, these are are the rules of the game.  The problem here is that there is a double-standard being applied.

          • http://nucco.org Fanen A.

            A list of prior art is at the end of that story, as well as more details about why Microsoft and Nokia went into “partnership”. It seems part of the reason was to pool their patents and use them against rivals, in spite of telecommunication standards.

            http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20111116222255905

        • testing123

          You take a small glance at the patent excerpt and you claim you have the knowledge to judge whether or not the patent is valid?

          If the long file name patent was as non obvious as you say, then why 18 years later do we not see other unencumbered implementations(this is not a case of an idea being patented, MS only owns a patent for a specific implementation of long/short file names) that are actually reliable?

          Like it or not, patent experts have gone through these patents, and while they have found that surely many are invalid, there are still many that are valid and are clearly non obvious..

          Remember, everything seems obvious in hindsight. 

  • Steveintheukok

    Do you support the local cupcake shop, or the local mafia that take their cut and put fear into the shop owner? That is the way I see Microsoft, if they stopped bullying and started creating the great products THEY ARE capable of making, maybe we would be a lot kinder to them!

  • Anonymous

    M$ is an ashole company! Bothering and abusing for more than two decades yet!

  • Guest

    Google doesn’t indemnify its Android licensees against any (real or potential) patent infringement, so these disputes are hardly surprising. 

    I understand why people might feel sympathetic to B&N.  Google is the real infringer, but the patent law requires that inventors pursue complaints againts those who are profiting from the IP. Google has artfully arranged it so that they are not the ones with target painted on their backs.  

    We can all admire the free software movement and support open source innovation–as long as it is not being used by huge corporations as a smokescreen for IP theft. 

    • Anonymous

      microsoft has, and does, use open source to both a: fight the open source name, and b: to use it for ip theft. Or did you forget the “we begrudgingly submitted code to the GPL” (because they were threatened with a lawsuit) or MS-PL or codeplex?

      all of these are designed to create a false sense of community, in order to IP theft from the community itself.

      troll more, microsofty. we know who you are, and we know the name is Florian Mueller.

      • Guest

        Your tinfoil hat is on too tight and its disrupting the flow of oxygen to your brain.

      • Guest

        Your tinfoil hat is on too tight and its disrupting the flow of oxygen to your brain.

    • Anonymous

      microsoft has, and does, use open source to both a: fight the open source name, and b: to use it for ip theft. Or did you forget the “we begrudgingly submitted code to the GPL” (because they were threatened with a lawsuit) or MS-PL or codeplex?

      all of these are designed to create a false sense of community, in order to IP theft from the community itself.

      troll more, microsofty. we know who you are, and we know the name is Florian Mueller.

    • Anonymous

      It is sad, that as a society we are being reduced to arguing about “IP” just because somebody thought it would be great to include “Patents” in our laws, then someone else came along and decided to extent the subject matter of “Software” to be patentable.

      …Like a bunch of kids playing in the same sand box, arguing about stealing each others ideas for the best sand castle. It would be funny if not so sad for what it is doing to us as a society.

      Patents, in general have no value whatsoever in our society, they create artificial barriers to entry and stifle innovation and forward motion of a society. They represent artificial, baseless, property, designed to enrich big business through artificial barriers and forced servitude of the rest. We should do away with all forms of patents just for this reason.

    • Anonymous

      It is sad, that as a society we are being reduced to arguing about “IP” just because somebody thought it would be great to include “Patents” in our laws, then someone else came along and decided to extent the subject matter of “Software” to be patentable.

      …Like a bunch of kids playing in the same sand box, arguing about stealing each others ideas for the best sand castle. It would be funny if not so sad for what it is doing to us as a society.

      Patents, in general have no value whatsoever in our society, they create artificial barriers to entry and stifle innovation and forward motion of a society. They represent artificial, baseless, property, designed to enrich big business through artificial barriers and forced servitude of the rest. We should do away with all forms of patents just for this reason.

  • Guest

    Google doesn’t indemnify its Android licensees against any (real or potential) patent infringement, so these disputes are hardly surprising. 

    I understand why people might feel sympathetic to B&N.  Google is the real infringer, but the patent law requires that inventors pursue complaints againts those who are profiting from the IP. Google has artfully arranged it so that they are not the ones with target painted on their backs.  

    We can all admire the free software movement and support open source innovation–as long as it is not being used by huge corporations as a smokescreen for IP theft. 

  • Guest

    Ugh. If you’re going to bore me with 29 slides, at least make them in colour. Who has the attention to read dozens of old faxes?

    • T4cgirl

      You do realize that most of the content on this site is in black and white?

      Did you make it to the end of my comment?

      • Guest

        I did, yes. Some colour would help if you want me to read more than two sentences. Proper punctuation would be appreciated on the first sentence, as well: a full stop would be more appropriate than is an interrogation point.

        • Anonymous

          You don’t read many books, do ya?

      • Guest

        I did, yes. Some colour would help if you want me to read more than two sentences. Proper punctuation would be appreciated on the first sentence, as well: a full stop would be more appropriate than is an interrogation point.

    • T4cgirl

      You do realize that most of the content on this site is in black and white?

      Did you make it to the end of my comment?

  • Guest

    Ugh. If you’re going to bore me with 29 slides, at least make them in colour. Who has the attention to read dozens of old faxes?

  • Anonymous

    Barnes & Noble also ask Google to give the code of the search algorithm

  • Anonymous

    Barnes & Noble also ask Google to give the code of the search algorithm

    • Olivier Zanchetta

      Well that is not available, but the majority of the R&D of Google is open-sourced

  • Guest

    This slide deck is a joke. It contradicts itself in many places and most of its accusations are poorly supported. Frankly, this makes B&N look like clowns.

    • Anonymous

      B&N has hired some of the best lawyers in the country, explicitly specialized in this case’s matters. They aren’t messing around. These slides have significant purpose on a lot of levels.

  • Guest

    This slide deck is a joke. It contradicts itself in many places and most of its accusations are poorly supported. Frankly, this makes B&N look like clowns.

  • Guest

    I guess if you’re infringing someone else’s patents and can’t actually deny it or defend your actions then whining to the DOJ is at least worth a shot.

    The person who is really at fault here is Google. They should have taken out patent licenses on behalf of their OEMs or offered a blanket indemnification to those partners. Internal documents secured by Oracle as part of their lawsuit show beyond a doubt that Google was aware Android likely infringed at least Oracle’s patents and possibly others (as MS correctly indicates, it’s unrealistic to think any modern OS doesn’t). So not doing so was really just irresponsible. And they’re still hiding behind their partners now, even with Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and others all going after Android for infringement.

    It’s also interesting to see the level of hypocrisy from illiterate MS trolls like “hpdirty”. The same people who applauded every time MS was forced to take out a patent license related to something Windows infringed on now condemn MS (but of course not Oracle or Apple) for doing likewise.

    • Olivier Zanchetta

      Are you talking about Oracle patents or SUN micro patents. Let me remind you that SUN was an opensource company, and so was Novell. SUN was perfectly happy for Google to use their IP

      • Brent A

        yes SUN was perfectly happy for Google to use their IP; it’s not surprising SUN went out of business and was sold. they couldn’t figure out the true value of java, Oracle did and is just trying to monetize java for what they paid for

  • Guest

    I guess if you’re infringing someone else’s patents and can’t actually deny it or defend your actions then whining to the DOJ is at least worth a shot.

    The person who is really at fault here is Google. They should have taken out patent licenses on behalf of their OEMs or offered a blanket indemnification to those partners. Internal documents secured by Oracle as part of their lawsuit show beyond a doubt that Google was aware Android likely infringed at least Oracle’s patents and possibly others (as MS correctly indicates, it’s unrealistic to think any modern OS doesn’t). So not doing so was really just irresponsible. And they’re still hiding behind their partners now, even with Oracle, Apple, Microsoft and others all going after Android for infringement.

    It’s also interesting to see the level of hypocrisy from illiterate MS trolls like “hpdirty”. The same people who applauded every time MS was forced to take out a patent license related to something Windows infringed on now condemn MS (but of course not Oracle or Apple) for doing likewise.

  • Assemblerman

    first and foremost software should NOT be patentable!!!!!   copyright protected as far as code and possibly design/ presentation wrt to trademarks and graphics but not processes.

    • Guest

      All software is algorithms.  Algorithms cannot be patented.  Ergo, software cannot be patented.

      • Assemblerman

        exactly my point!!!   but the uspto has deemed to ignore their own rules because large corps give them large ‘donations’.

      • Assemblerman

        exactly my point!!!   but the uspto has deemed to ignore their own rules because large corps give them large ‘donations’.

      • Dahlindastilltrolling

        Your logic is impeccable except your first statement is false, which renders your conclusion false as well.

      • Dahlindastilltrolling

        Your logic is impeccable except your first statement is false, which renders your conclusion false as well.

      • guest

        you’re wrong, software is not algorithms. some software may contain algorithms but not all do

      • guest

        you’re wrong, software is not algorithms. some software may contain algorithms but not all do

    • Guest

      All software is algorithms.  Algorithms cannot be patented.  Ergo, software cannot be patented.

    • Guest

      But it is. So your argument is moot.

      • Anonymous

        It is, but only in America. Everywhere else applied common sense and outlawed software patents. Despite this, the rest of the world is fcked up because of the American system. Time for change.

        • Guest

          Everywhere else isn’t leading the world in software companies, now are they? Yeah, time for a change, Time for the rest of the world to stop whining and start doing.

      • Anonymous

        It is, but only in America. Everywhere else applied common sense and outlawed software patents. Despite this, the rest of the world is fcked up because of the American system. Time for change.

    • Guest

      But it is. So your argument is moot.

    • guest

      if u can patent hardware why shouldn’t u be able to patent software. hardware is useless without software

  • http://www.facebook.com/eric.swinson Eric Swinson

    I felt bad recently that Microsoft wasn’t getting the press that they used to becuse Apple was the new villan. Now it looks as the universe has begun to right itself. 

    • Guest

      MS as the villain is always the least path of resistance. Still lots of morons stuck in the 90’s who haven’t moved on.

    • Guest

      MS as the villain is always the least path of resistance. Still lots of morons stuck in the 90’s who haven’t moved on.

  • Bill

    I patented breathing. Pay me or hold your breath. 

  • Bill

    I patented breathing. Pay me or hold your breath. 

  • Rpontopx

    I dont think Google’s recent ruminations on standing beside Android partners are lost on MS. Neither is that rather massive portfolio Google’s in the process of acquiring. 

  • Rpontopx

    I dont think Google’s recent ruminations on standing beside Android partners are lost on MS. Neither is that rather massive portfolio Google’s in the process of acquiring. 

    • Guest

      “Neither is that rather massive portfolio Google’s in the process of acquiring”

      You mean the one that didn’t help Motorola defend itself against either Apple or Microsoft? Or the one they tried to buy off Nortel but failed? Maybe you mean the one they’re buying off IBM in a desperate attempt to get counter suit material since they can’t defend Android?

  • Anonymous

    If you ask me to show you an evil company, M$ is the first that’s comes up. Am not surprised by this. That’s how they roll.

  • Anonymous

    If you ask me to show you an evil company, M$ is the first that’s comes up. Am not surprised by this. That’s how they roll.

    • Trschober

      actually, first to mind is Oracle, followed by Apple and then MS. Those other two are directly anti-consumer, while MS is happy to keep consumers happy while trashing every company who dares enter their market

      • Pastychomper

        As an “consumer,” I’ve yet to find a Microsoft product I’m happy with.  Ok I used to like DOS 6, but only when compared to Windows.

    • Trschober

      actually, first to mind is Oracle, followed by Apple and then MS. Those other two are directly anti-consumer, while MS is happy to keep consumers happy while trashing every company who dares enter their market

    • Guest

      And this is surprising from someone so immature that they spell Microsoft M$?

  • Jason

    Windows Phone is better anyway. 

    • http://profiles.google.com/michel.memeteau michel memeteau

      If it was better , It would have already been a success and MS wouldn’t seek to grab money from android…

      • Guest

        Lots of better technology didn’t succeed. Maybe brush up on your technology history.

    • http://profiles.google.com/michel.memeteau michel memeteau

      If it was better , It would have already been a success and MS wouldn’t seek to grab money from android…

  • Jason

    Windows Phone is better anyway. 

  • ChuckOp

    Wow, 29 slides that do everything EXCEPT refute the core claim – that Android violates patents that Microsoft owns.  Most of the slide deck talks about old history which doesn’t matter in this case.

    Nice try by B&N to try saying that Microsoft wants Windows Phone on all Andriod devices because they are charging a similar license fee.

    This is classic FUD.

  • Dirknn

    Curious how effective the measures against hidden anti-competitive clauses in contracts with OEM’s are?
    From that site, I do not see any real competition. I think there is no other market where such a price argument would not be used.
    And no one should try the argument that is would be to complex to use Linux. For one, look at modern distributions. And any natural part of the market would have created the needed support on different levels.
    Why did that never happened?

  • bill

    I relish the day MS goes the way of JFK, murdered by it’s own corrupt machine, a violent and bloody bath of destruction, struck down publicly, many people agasp, viewing the carnage in near disbelief.

  • Guest

    Complaint about MS done in PowerPoint…priceless

    • Richard Foulkes

      How do you know it was powerpoint? The article mentions ‘slide deck’.

      I’m sick of people calling documents “Word Documents”, spreadsheets “Excel Spreadsheets” and presentations “Powerpoint Presentations”.

    • Richard Foulkes

      How do you know it was powerpoint? The article mentions ‘slide deck’.

      I’m sick of people calling documents “Word Documents”, spreadsheets “Excel Spreadsheets” and presentations “Powerpoint Presentations”.

  • Guest

    Complaint about MS done in PowerPoint…priceless

  • Guest

    Complaint about MS done in PowerPoint…priceless

  • Maven99

    Seems like a key issue missing from the discussion is really more about what an appropriate fee should be for these patents. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they have some validity. Doesn’t mean you should be able to go out and require $1,000 per device as a licensing fee. Given that the OEM licensing fee for a full copy of Windows is ~$50/copy, seems like ~$10 for these trivial components of Android is way overreaching. Maybe if they asked for $0.10 per device that might be defensible. Setting a ridiculously high price is effectively the same as refusing to license.
    How many other bit players holding random minor patents will pile on, effectively driving licensing up to hundreds if not thousands of dollars per device. This is not reasonable, is in no way defensible and is “patently” against the good of consumers and society.
    I would suggest that, in addition to appealing the decision, as a backup plan B&N (and Google) should get some good analysis done about what a truly reasonable fee should be.

Job Listings on GeekWork

Find more jobs on GeekWork. Employers, post a job here.