This is the biggest one yet. Microsoft’s professional extortion campaign – the third side of the same triangle it shares with Apple and Oracle – has finally hit Samsung. The two companies have signed a patent licensing agreement concerning Samsung’s use of Android, in which a rumoured fee of $15 (!) per device will flow from Seoul to Redmond. Not entirely coincidentally, that’s about the price of a Windows Phone 7 license.
As usual, Microsoft is actually proud of this deal – and honestly, who can blame them. I mean, the current patent system allows them to do absolutely nothing, to contribute zero code to Android, and yet still receive massive piles of money. This is what we used to call the mafia; threaten people into paying protection money. Pay up, else we’re breaking your legs.
The reason for this is clear. Windows Phone 7 is not doing well in the market place, despite it actually being a decent product. So, what do you do if you can’t compete? Well, you litigate, of course. Zero effort, free money. Shareholders rejoice, and nobody gives a bloody frick about the chilling effect this has on innovation. Apple fanatics rejoice because they hate Google more than anything, Microsoft fanatics still think their pet company is relevant in the mobile space (how cute), and everybody else loses out.
We had a good opportunity here, people. When this whole mobile computing thing finally started to take off, we were looking at a wide open landscape of opportunities, lots of interesting players and ideas, newscomers, you name it. We were looking at innovation up the wazzoo. But I guess that as long as the large, established corporations buy governments the world over, we simpletons simply can’t have nice things.
Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
With the growing list of companies to cave into Microsoft’s protection racketeering, is there any Android vendors I can still buy from?
Hm.. Did Motorola cave before Google baught the mobile business from them?
Nope.
Well, that’s something then; be interesting to see Microsoft try and extor Google for it’s OS and hardware units they way they’ve extorted other hardware makers.
The companies that have signed patent deals are HTC, Samsung, Acer, General Dynamics Itronix, Wistron, Onkyo, and Viewsonic. If there is an 8th one I haven’t heard about it yet. Or, more likely, I just forgot. (o;)
Out of 239 Android handset makers you may be able to find one in the remaining 236. Or you could just cave in and buy a BrewMP OS phone. They will be supporting the use of Android apps on their OS as well as other OSes.
Not Sony Ericsson yet?
SE has marginal sales in the US so they couldn’t care less, and MS probably thinks banning their couple of phones from there is not worth the bas PR.
That makes no sense. Microsoft is interested in money, not in sniping at the U.S. market.
Sniping at the US market equates to more money. Less competing products in the market gives Microsoft a better chance to profit from it’s products. Same for any business really; more competition means less potential profits unless you can maintain dominant market share possition (which Win7 Phone is no where near).
SE is marginal pretty much everywhere, not showing constant huge loses mainly due to creative accounting (for example, in some way not counting fairly recent massive cash infusions from parent companies among loses). They might as well join the likes of Siemens quite soon.
I’m waitinig for a smartphone without OS.
Or again it’s just a threat easier to avoid by giving cash than being, well, true?
It’s a business decision, if paying protection rackets costs less than fighting them then the company pays.
the problem is that it ligitimizes the protection racket with yet another example the the raketeer can point to as evidence that future “customers” should pay up. (Your neibour the butcher shop thought we where worth paying, you should too.. notice how the shop hasn’t had a fire or broken windows since becoming a our customer?)
In more modern terms, it provides case law that strengthens the raketeer’s posission in future litigation. It doesn’t have to be right, it just has to have happened a bunch of times already.
Remember that Samsung is a big PC OEM, so winning against Microsoft would still be a loss for them.
How would that work?
I think he/she means that Microsoft would make Samsung pay more on the desktop.
I doubt that’s the case though because their anti-trust agreement prevents them from playing with their OEM pricing on a case by case basis.
]{
Even though, they do charge each OEM different prices and have pricing on “case by case basis”
Plus, as far as I know, the patents Microsoft claims are violated by any Linux based device, Android included, are all software ones.
Since when software patents are considered valid world-wide!? I fail to see why a phone manufacturer should license a software license from MS to ba allowed to sell his products in a market where software patents have no ground, like Europe.
What am I missing here?
Edited 2011-09-28 16:03 UTC
Money.
Not sure if that’s the answer you’re looking for, but generally, whenever crap like this happens, the answer is ‘money’.
It’s that or… 42.
To be more specific, if samsung wants to sell products in the US, they have to adhere to US laws which means paying the patent racketeer or not selling Samsung phones in the US.
Perfectly valid question. I guess they (Samsung) just don’t care, and just want to be left alone already and paying up is the easiest way. Problem is, MS can use such deals as leverage when going after others.
Do you have actual information that anyone is paying a patent license fee for any devices shipped to a country where the patent isn’t valid?
That would appear to be what is missing.
Because they sign a common patent licensing agreement, not a specific patent license. You can blame IBM’s lawyers for creating those kind of agreements.
After that agreement is signed, Samsung gets licenses to all patents but also blindly validates all other.
Maybe Alcatel-Lucent(owner of Bell Labs) should produce an Android phone or go into some partnerships with Android makers.
Any IP suit against them will be like pushing your own auto destruct button.
Why would Alcatel Lucent (owner of Bell Labs) wand to partner with Android just because Android is in patent troubles?
Lucent, unlike Google, actually respects patents. So why would they want to join Google in their patent war?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcatel_One_Touch_980 ? (plus two other listed in the “Android devices” table)
OK, that’s not strictly a device from Alcatel-Lucent …but they do grant it (part of) their name.
And yeah, uninspiring / you’ve never heard about it / in the last few years Alcatel mobile phones went from “largely irrelevant” to “they’re still around?”
Edited 2011-09-29 01:33 UTC
Yeah, the Alcatel Lucent merge was *such* a good idea and done *so* efficiently that today nobody care about them both…
I don’t think it had much to do with the merger (more like buyout?), Alcatel-Lucent seems to do fine in areas not facing consumers (so no wonder consumers don’t care). In phones, Alcatel was becoming progressively less relevant for a better part of the decade, for a way too long time they didn’t manage to jump out of offering only the simplest of handsets (such stagnation was the fault of few others, also Nokia for example, but Alcatel did it to the extreme for quite a while)
Edited 2011-10-06 00:01 UTC
It used to be Embrace, Extend and Extinguish for Microsoft. Now it is Examine competition, Exhibit patent threats, Extort money. It makes me so mad, all I can say is duck fat.
Why would I hate Google if I like Apple? Why does Thom always dig at Apple even if the news has nothing to do with Apple?
Apple fans don’t hate Google, but Apple fanboys do.
Google fan that I am, I assure you my dislike of Apple is well founded, based on product experience. When I was selling phones, we sold far more Galaxy S handsets alone than we did iPhones. I saw more iPhones come back on warranty calls, and more iPhones come back broken for insurance calls than I did all models of Android devices put together, every month. I wish I’d kept some solid metrics of that… Also, iPhone owners tend to put up with problematic behaviour on their phones a lot more than Android device owners. Android owners were bringing their phones back on warranty for some vague idea of sluggishnes (when in fact they were quite quick and perfectly fine), while friends with iPhones, their phones crawl along at a snail’s pace, their apps randomly close on them regularly, they drop calls, lose messages, their email account settings magically break all the time, and they think their phones are fine!
Funny, your observations go against industry statistics.
As I said, I wish I’d kept some solid metrics on it. I know what I was seeing, though. It could be that this region isn’t representative of the whole, and I’m only speaking from my experience, but I’d honestly be surprised if the customer behaviour, regarding what they put up with, were different elsewhere.
Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes, and that’s precisely because Google didn’t bother to think of anything new, and that’s in part because they willfully violate patents rather than thinking of new ways to do things. They decided to just copy and give their software away for free, thus undercutting everyone else while stagnating innovation themselves.
Were it up to Google, innovation would stop with Android. And nobody else could enter the market because you can’t compete against “free”.
Well, Android’s not so free anymore, and Google might finally have to actually innovate to think of ways to do things that don’t violate existing patents.
Lastly, Google could’ve licensed the Microosft patents years ago for a pittance, but were too arrogant or too shady or to “clever” to do so (“clever” as in, “since we don’t charge directly for our software, we can violate patents willy-nilly and nobody can sue us!! Our “partners” will have to deal with it, but that’s their problem; we’ll make sure its their problem and not ours by refusing indemnification.”) Instead of licensing those patents for only a few million dollars years ago, or better yet, enter into a cross-licensing deal, they decided to violate the patents and years later had to pay over twelve BILLION for a failing Motorola company in order to get some outdated patents fatten their meager patent portfolio. Samsung wasn’t too impressed with those Motorola patents, apparently.
I’ll allow that Google’s violation of Apple patents couldn’t have been prevented by licensing them for a pittance years ago because Apple doesn’t offer its patents for licensing; they instead just force competing products off the market without giveing the competitors even a chance to license the patents in question. But Google could’ve licensed the MS patents years ago for cheap.
Actually they did and Apple have been copying from Android in ver. 4 and is supposed to continue in 5.
They also innovated java exectution making it suitable for battery constrained devices. Actually would be better off licencing dalvik to J2ME companies insted of suing Google.
Can you cite examples… and no, not the inclusion of cloud technology or associated services. That isn’t copying any more than Google creating web based email was copying hotmail.
They innovated a technology that they didn’t have legal allowance to use in the first place?
iOS 5 notifications ? If, for you, Google implementing a touchscreen OS similar to iOS in behavior is copying, then surely you should have noticed what has happened there.
(Myself, I’m happy that companies “copy” each other… It would be a usability disaster and a waste of efforts if every phone OS out there had to reinvent basic things file management or web browsing in order to avoid the patent minefield)
Are we talking about Java the language or Oracle JRE the implemented runtime ?
Java the language is to the best of my knowledge an open standard which everyone may make use of, as third-party runtimes like IcedTea are here to testify. The Oracle lawsuits are about illegal copying of JRE code.
Edited 2011-09-28 20:12 UTC
Actually it’s more about patents now. Copyrights have been all but settled, not in Google’s favor.
You’re right, Oracle apparently also have IP on other aspects of the JRE than the code. I still believe it’s not related to the programming language itself, though.
Edited 2011-09-29 04:51 UTC
What’s been settled? Last I saw Google lost their application for a summary dismissal due to some procedural mistakes of their filing, meaning that the copyright claims will go to jury trial. Would have been better to have them dismissed, but it’s not a done deal that they’ll lose.
Nothing has really been settled yet, other than the fact Oracle won’t be allowed to claim a zillion billion trillion dollars in damages.
A) They are at fault there.
B) I don’t believe that any sane person can assign non ) value to the copyright violation, given that Google removed them as soon as those were pointed out.
“Can you cite examples… ”
Notification system.
Multitasking.
System wide copy & paste.
“They innovated a technology that they didn’t have legal allowance to use in the first place?”
These days, all technology is locked down by legal trolling. Nobody can innovate anymore without stepping on the legal shoes of someone else.
That would not be a problem is the shoes guys were continuing to innovate on their own… shoes technology. But they less and less do that.
Instead they place themselves in the middle of a mandatory corridor and simply wait that people step on their shoes so they can yell at them until they receive some cash.
Last but not least, they all started their business also by stepping on (giant) shoes too. The giant just didn’t notice them, then. Or just want to be a giant troll.
Again, it’s “do as we say, not as we did” pure hypocrisy.
Edited 2011-09-29 07:54 UTC
“Or just want to be a giant troll.”
just DIDN’T want to be a giant troll.
Sorry for the mistake, english is not my native language.
But black rectangles with rounded corners, or the whole basic idea of minimalism (while also pretending the “Braun minimalism” didn’t exist), are within scope, I’m sure…
You really don’t know anything about patents, do you?
FYI: Innovation lacks the inventive step to be patentable.
So… When did Microsoft offer licenses?
“Adroid is just a copycat of other OSes”
Which themselves are copycats of other OSes too, and the track goes up to first OS ever made.
The earlier OSes makers just had a luck that 1) nobody has now and 2) allw them now to abuse to lock the situation in order to make this situation continues forever: they made their OSes while escaping patent troll was not even necessary.
These days, *they* are the patent trolls. Robin Hood became a Sheriff.
It’s written “do what we say, not what we did.” all over the wall.
Edited 2011-09-29 07:52 UTC
Ahhhh, Molly the Microsoft troll is still around I see……….
They were too arrogant to pay up the protection money Microsoft demanded for non-existent patents! ROTFL.
On the contrary, it means they don’t need others to manufacture hardware for Android now.
Motorola invented the mobile. Nuff said.
Upset that Google isn’t giving in like all the other weak minded and clueless companies, eh?
You know, it’s not quite so clear. Motorola Mobility certainly is a failing company, struggling to be financially in the clear for quite some time now, borderline almost-achieving it mostly via concentrating the efforts on their remaining few decent markets, retreating from almost all others worldwide (and I can’t imagine returns to be easy). Turning the wheel on that, when Moto is under Google, has a real risk of alienating other Android makers – also the big few who really push the adoption of Android – so sensibly maintaining own handset division might prove quite a headache for Google.
Then there is a real possibility that Google gave in to Motorola, was strong-armed into a deal much closer to the price-per-share that Moto wanted (remember Motorola CEO publicly contemplating the possibility of using WinPhone7, or launching a patent war of their own at other Android makers, in the week or two before Google acquisition announcement?)
How Motorola was one of the pioneers of mobile phone technology (with large part of that certainly remaining also with the “infrastructure” part of Motorola) doesn’t have to mean so much when MS snatches Nokia… ;p (and then, a comparable situations doesn’t mean too much, for quite some time now, to Daimler AG)
It’s been my experience that users who prefer Apple products because of the superiority in areas that matter to them (e.g. your “fanatics” actually like Google a great deal. Many (Apple users and not) dislike Google for a number of reasons. Here’s a few reasons why I personally don’t like the as a company despite liking many of their services:
Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Groupon won’t sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.
Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.
Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won’t sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.
Buy up the big travel search sites.
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about — search, and nothing related to how you make your money — advertising
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system
Edited 2011-09-28 19:09 UTC
…and yet, Amazon can build an entirely non-Google Android and (probably) sell millions of copies. And yet, Fusion Garage can experiment with Android and build and entirely non-Google experience.
Cut the nonsense, Kelly. The facts don’t support your gruberesque bull.
Wow, Thom, you negated every one of my comments with that non-retort.
Why would I want to counter points that (except for a few idiotic ones) clearly true? Google is no saint, and I never claimed otherwise.
That’s the problem with debating with zealots such as yourself. You think everything is black and white, so when people like me – non-zealots – have issues with your pet company, you automatically assume we are cheering for the other team all the way, that we approve everything they do.
You think that because that’s how your mind works. You are projecting your mindset (“ALL APPLE DO = GOOD”) onto mine, simply because you are incapable of realising that the world is not black and white. For people like me, who have no specific undying love for any company, companies can do both good and bad things – at the same time.
Look, Kelly, the fact that we are allowing you to post here in spite of all the things you’ve done to me and Eugenia, and despite the things you said about my family, is something of a miracle. Don’t squander it.
Because you don’t have a valid response
You come to their defense at every corner, you are a major supporter and defender of their copying agenda business strategy and you take great pride in trying to find fault in those companies who wish to seek retribution and inflate it to be something far greater than what it is.
What’s funny is that you don’t recognize yourself as zealot you accuse others to be.
You have me all figured out.
I know English isn’t your main language so I’ll forgive you but the correct spelling there is “super-zealot”
I have a pet company? If I do, its only my own.
Thom, you are too transparent for you to make such claims and more to the point you present proof every single day on this site that totally contradicts that ideology.
Thom, it’s only in your world that a sports fan wearing team colors, has a painted face, holding a team pennant and repeatedly yelling, “go home team!!!” should actually be perceived as being team agnostic. I on the other hand call it as I see it. You repeatedly show yourself as the proverbial sports fan on this site… which is fine but you also want to claim that you have zero bias that influences the direction of this site. When people point out this flaw you silence their voice.
Actually if I do anything on this site, it’s only defending companies (Apple included) when you present them in a false light. You see, you have the black and white mindset that (“ALL APPLE DO = BAD”). If you see me coming to Apple’s defense more often than other companies on this forum it’s simply because you present that company in a far worse light than what it deserves.
What defines you is not your undying love for anything but rather your undying hate for a company
Don’t kid yourself Thom, I’ve said nothing of your family and only have spoken the truth of You and Eugenia. You on the other hand have stated such blatant falsehoods about me that were you to live in the U.S. I would have a valid case for slander.
And no, you don’t LET me say anything here…. you have continually banned me for simply pointing out falsehoods with your methodology.
tl;dr
Really? That statement contradicts your original post, where you bash Google while not really defending anything Apple. Thom actually negatively portrayed Microsoft, not Apple. Why don’t you defend Microsoft here? In fact, if you actually read Thom’s text he’s “attacking” Apple fanatics, not Apple here.
Kelly here are other guys who’s submission get turned down just as much, I am one of those. About 90% of everything i submit get rejected. Not one email ever from Thom.
You still go explanations.
But i always remember i’m a guest here. It’s their perogative.
So take a step back, think about the person you want to be and don’t that this Techno Circus babble here to seriously.
Android 2.x was certainly open source by any reasonable definition. Both the Amazon product, the Fusion Garage product and the Baidu fork/version is 2.x based.
Google closed the source as of Android 3 (Honeycomb). Google said they will release the source in the future but it has, to date, seen the light of day (that I know of)
Hopefully 3.1 will once again become open when it’s released in November but there is no news on that as of yet.
That’s bordering on a lie (again?…); Google was quite clear about the reasons for keeping tablet-only version closed, and even clearer, repeatedly, about the next version having its source released.
No company that uses, produces or promotes OSS, has OSS assets as the core of the business.
The companies that do, usually go out of business.
That’s so repeatable, that’s nearly a rule.
RMS can go to great lenghts preaching about selling GPL’d software, but the fact is OSS is like photography; it helps selling other stuff.
Edited 2011-09-28 19:48 UTC
Apple, the richest company in the world produces and promotes OSS and has its assets as the core of their business
You’re right that its true most of the time.
No they don’t. iOS kernel is not opensource, the ARM port of XNU was never opensourced. Their proprietary graphics stack is very much closed source. The things that make them different are proprietary.
Apple and Samsung are at loggerheads at the moment over a number of devices and patents. Them paying a cross agreement with Microsoft might well Strengthen their position in these legal battles. If Apple are suing over one patent and MS are licensing something similar then Apple wont pursue that one in case one is proven dominant over the other. That is one less they have to spend thousands(?) fighting over
It is more like $15 per hundred or thousand.
Big OEM’s buy in thousands or in one time fee per thousands. They don’t pay 1/10 of what people think.
Edited 2011-09-28 20:07 UTC
HTC is paying Microsoft $5 per unit, no volume discount. I can’t imagine Smasung is paying $15 but they are certainly paying at least $5.
Microsoft is, almost certainly, getting less then $10 per unit. That won’t kill Android in the marketplace or, I suspect, even dent it’s ascendance.
Admittedly, if Oracle and Apple force the OEM’s to pay a fee and the total licensing fee climbs into the $20+ dollar range that will impact the growth of Android because the OEM’s will have an vested interest in selling Windows rather than Android since it will be cheaper.
None of this, I imagine, would help Apple at all.
However Samsung has some patents, has cross-licensed them to MS and probably promised to keep a WM7 and future versions on life support; no problem for them to shell out a few more models, and let Microsoft care if they sell or not.
So it’s most likely below the $10 mark. There are a lot of other FRAND type licenses increasing the product cost already, and MS also set a precedent by HTC contract so they are unlikely to get more from other big vendor which has weapons for litigation.
suck it
Congratulations!
I joined OSNews in 2006 and that was the most stupid, brain dead comment I ever read.
Too stupid for even the most myopic troll.
Have some cheese with your whine…
So… The developers/slaves work for free for Linux and Android… and Microsoft gets money in the bank.
Did I miss something? I think I did: Linus Torvalds, Google and Linux Foundation do nothing and say nothing about it.
Very suspicious.
Edited 2011-09-28 23:53 UTC
Actually, Google said …
… and then Microsoft said (seriously, this is from @fxshaw) …
Watching these companies cat fight like this is so very funny.
Thing is, Microsoft is not taking its patent claims to the Linux Foundation so changes can be made, they’re just shaking down smaller companies for the money and making the companies sign NDAs so nobody even knows what the problem is.
“smaller companies”… aren’t we talking about samsung here ? The company that makes about three times more than Apple and Microsoft, 50% more than IBM
They don’t go after small companies, they go after companies who make profits, and will be able to give them money. There is no point in attacking the linux fundation, it does not have much money, it does not sell products, and they are sure to try to fight back. All it will give to MS is bad press.
Casio is bigger than Microsoft? They’ll be so glad to hear that.
The point was that patents have been violated (allegedly), so normal procedure should be to show the Linux Foundation what the problem is, so they make changes, before threatening THEM with litigation. Instead, it’s just an extra revenue source, and how convenient for Microsoft it is that their patents are being infringed upon. The Linux foundation is backed by IBM and others. Maybe that’s what MS is afraid of.
I don’t see why these wimpy companies are giving in to the mafia-like shakedowns Microsoft is pulling. Microsoft has no real patents to threaten anyone with.
Oh, right. I’m sure that Samsung is in the habit of giving away millions of dollars in revenue without cause… Are you actually naive enough to believe that “no real patents” exist? LOL! Talk about reality distortion.
Best next thing I can see that should be done now, its about Google requiring Samsung a fee payment based on violation of some (they certainly do) of the thousand licenses Google owns now. This is becoming an open war and now its the right time to count weapons and fix who is aligning with who.
The funny thing is that MS is trolling its own partners while hoping they will promote its own platform stuck in a hard place. And still they grin and plead.
Google could still play hard and tell their partners to drop WP7 plans or face moto patents asserted , but they declared themselves as “Do not evil” company. Looks like being labbeled as “Evil empire” gives MS more operational freedom than its competitors, as apparently the etics of doing business concern nobody these times.
Edited 2011-09-29 12:59 UTC
I would prefer to support Google in case they were to play evil too. After all, the MS “protection tax” will be paid by the consumers to support the fat salaries of those who are litigating instead of writing code, I mean, the MS staff. I’m quite sure Google would do better use of those funds, to the consumer and also upstream.
dup
Edited 2011-09-29 04:04 UTC
It’s amazing there are people stupid enough to actually label this as extortion.
Sorry to piss all over your parade but this is not going to cripple innovation, make the sky fall, or anything of any significance to any of you. Stop trying to spread fear with no real basis.
Samsung was founded in 1938.
In 2009 The Samsung Group had revenues of $172 billon and 276,000 employees.
But to the geek mind, it must be extortion when Samsung licenses tech from Microsoft.
No matter how rich and powerful this global industrial cartel may be in its own right.
If it was actually about justice, Microsoft would be aproaching the manufacturers of Linux and Android (Linux.org and Google). Instead, Microsoft is doing all it can to build legal predicence without directly confronting the legally applicable parties responsible for the alleged infringing products.
What should one call it when you go door to door threating each neibour based on the successful secret threats of the previous neibours?
Nah.. if it wasn’t about extortion and exploiting the legal system, Microsoft would detail the patents infringed, aproach Linux.org/Google directly and be open about the details of these agreements.
The NDAs and secrecy makes many think that Microsoft’s claims can’t actually stand on there own merit as valid non-obvious creations that should be protected by patents. Remember, the patent system was intended to enable inovation and allow secret trade practices to be made public without loss to the practitioner.
Well I know people are not happy. Let’s look at other way… Microsoft is earning lot more money from Android than WP7! Taking this scenario… It is in benefit of Microsoft to see to it that Android succeeds!
However one interesting thing I really want to see… The way they have threaten Samsung, HTC, Acer and other mobile vendors and are now in deal. I would like to see they talk in same language to Motorola and ask them to pay for their patented technologies. That would actually expose the truth.
Like this:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/microsoft-files-patent-suit-against-m…
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/01/technology/microsoft_motorola/index…
GIYF
Thanks for the links. Indeed this is excellent. Is the case still going on after Google’s acquisition? It will be interesting to see what result we get.
I hate to repeat myself but the leading, heavily editorialised presentation of this story is really unnecessary.
Anyway, wasn’t it rumoured that HTC is only paying $1-2 per device? How’d Samsung screw up negotiations so badly? The thought of $1-2 of my money going to MS is hard enough to stomach, now I’m not sure I could bring myself to buy a Samsung Android phone.
Here’s hoping Samsung start selling Android phones without Android, with the ‘sync’ software downloading and installing CyanogenMod. It’s not going to happen but I can always dream.
Why exactly are you so emotionally invested? Are you a shareholder? Have family members that work for these companies? If your just a mere end-user then you should really remove yourself from what HTC pays as it has absolutely no affect on your life what-so-ever. If you need something to spend your time & energy on, find a good charity and have at it.
Because his sense of self-worth seems to be derived from what he carries around with him in his pocket.
Through what warped-arse interpretation of my post did you get the impression that I’m emotionally invested?
Quite simply the part where you displayed emotional attachment: “The thought of $1-2 of my money going to MS is hard enough to stomach, now I’m not sure I could bring myself to buy a Samsung Android phone.”
It’s beyond me why a person with no actual interests in these companies take their licensing agreement so serious as to not be sure they could “bring themselves (you) to buy a Samsung Android phone”.
Maybe I’m old-fashioned or crazy but all I’m concerned with is 1) does the phone suit my needs, and 2) am I comfortable with the price. I couldn’t care less if $1-2 of my no-longer-mine dollars goes to Microsoft or hookers & booze, and you shouldn’t care either. There are plenty of worthy causes to spend your time on — this isn’t one of them, seriously.
When I have to pay an extra $15 for products, I’m given pause. When I have to pay an extra $15 for products, just to fill the pockets of third parties who contributed nothing of note to those products to justify the extra price, I’m given more pause. When I know that $15 is going to an organisation with a long history of being arse holes, I’m given yet more pause.
If you really don’t get it, I invite you to shop at Icaria’s grocery store. Our prices aren’t great (drug habits are expensive, after all) but, well, what do you care where your money goes?
First, how did $1-2 magically become $15? Second, if you’re so worried about how people spend their money, that was formerly your money, then you better stop paying taxes, putting gas in your car (which I assume you have), using electricity, and all of the other billion things that put “your” money in the hands of people who misuse it. And btw, companies don’t have to justify their prices.. That responsibility is yours — you justify prices to yourself by purchasing products & services. Everything for sale is worth what people are willing to pay. You, not a company, determines an items value to yourself.
I’ll quote myself and bold the parts you should pay extra attention to.
“Maybe I’m old-fashioned or crazy but all I’m concerned with is 1) does the phone suit my needs, and 2) am I comfortable with the price. I couldn’t care less if $1-2 of my no-longer-mine dollars goes to Microsoft or hookers & booze, and you shouldn’t care either. There are plenty of worthy causes to spend your time on — this isn’t one of them, seriously.“
Did you read the story?
I vote, I use solar energy. Next.
Got any other obvious and irrelevant observations to make? ‘The sky is blue’, ‘piss is yellow’, that kind of stuff?
Yes, I read your fairytale.
Voting has nothing to do with anything here. Good job using solar energy though. However, do you use a gas powered car? Do you use grid electricity to any degree? Do you work and pay taxes? The list of questions, whose answers would easily contradict your supposed deep concern for where your money goes, can go on forever. Rather than waste time doing that I’m pretty sure it’s safe to say that you participate in putting money in the hands of bad people and you likely aren’t ignorant to that fact.
That depends, are you going to continue to play dumb? This is the third time you’ve been told now — there are plenty of worthy causes to spend your time on, go find one or a few. Unless you really enjoy looking like a fool that whines every time “Microsoft” is part of a discussion.
What was that you said about playing dumb?
Okay, maybe you’re not so much playing dumb.
I’m not sure but I think we may need to invent a new informal fallacy to describe your reasoning, here. I’m not allowed to worry about where my money goes unless I worry about every last penny. Right, got you. Dumb is now officially an understatement.
Oh, the ridiculous lengths you’ve gone to to defend your original misapprehension. This must be a really high-stakes internet argument.
Why are you wetting yourself over a rumor? And btw, don’t assume that any time there’s a licensing fee involved that it’s always absorbed by the consumer.
You only seem to care about where your money goes when any portion of it goes to Microsoft. Yet you seem to have no concern when it goes to far worse people in the world. So basically you just like to whine about Microsoft.
Quite the imagination you have there. When you’re ready to come back to reality, let me know.
Good job changing the subject. Never mind that that rumour is the best info we have to go on, I started out by comparing it to another rumoured figure and we know that the figure is somewhere in that ballpark.
No, that’s a pretty safe assumption. Samsung aren’t about to let their margins go to hell, especially while they’re in a comfortable lead. Most, if not all of the ~$15 will be paid by the consumer, in one way or another.
Wow, that’s a stupid assertion. I already demonstrated that this is false and even if I hadn’t, through what crystal ball could you divine such an observation? Strawman much? While we’re pulling shit out of our arses, you ‘seem’ to have a foot fetish and are a crappy driver. Just putting that out there.
Stop, just stop. That response doesn’t even make sense; you’ve failed to provide any sort of context. It’s bad enough that you’re treating this like a game and flogging a dead horse without also making meaningless and irrelevant retorts.
Your rumor didn’t even come from a credible source, and you don’t “know” anything about this deal beyond pure speculation because nothing has been announced other than an agreement exists. You started out at $1-2, now you’re jumped to $15 — all based on nothing. You seem to have a problem blurring the line between your imagination and reality.
Nothing in your opinion has any basis on anything in reality. Sadly I have to point out that Samsung is a vendor, not a retail outlet. Do I further have to explain the difference or are you capable of looking that up and actually comprehending it on your own?
More of your nonsense from lala land I see. Btw, if you don’t like how you present yourself to the rest of us, …..
You’ve just done a great job of describing yourself, congratulations. Remembering, you’re the one throwing a fit over nothing more than rumor & speculation by people who aren’t even in the know here. It’s hilarious that everything you’ve said has absolutely no basis in reality, yet you think I’m the one blowing smoke up your ass. Like I said, when you’re ready to come back to the real world, you let me know lil buddy.
My original comment:
Illiterate, are we?
Well, at least we’ve moved on from the ’emotional investment’ narrative. Now I’m just delusional…
Wow, that’s an overt red herring.
Same as above. Your basic strategy seems to be to throw random accusations around and to clumsily bat back the accusations levelled at you. It’s almost as if you’re trying to troll but lack the skill to do so effectively.
No, you’re both.
It’s almost as if you’re trying to pretend you actually know what you’re talking about, but lack the ability and common sense to do so.
Are you done?
Well… Are you done spouting off nonsense? If yes, then yes.
Don’t be obtuse (and that goes for the thread beside). Or are you really so blissfully unaware how interconnected the societies are?
People who don’t care where their money goes, as long as they feel good about their (any) new toys (this, and how consumers justify post-factum the prices to themselves, leads also to the waste of positional or veblen goods BTW), when even a choice of “lesser evil” is quite straightforward, are a major push behind most of the harm in the world. Paying lip-service and throwing change to some random charities, to feel better about yourself, doesn’t make too much of a difference.
That sad state of the world certainly does fall under what you even bold nearby, is certainly “old-fashioned” and “crazy” …small steps (starting where it’s easy, getting used to it, and going further from there) could start really changing it down the line. If there are enough people doing them, it could eventually really change the stakes in the world (and BTW – taxes, how they are used, and govs themselves, are a collective reflection of our own desires).
Or you can just cowardly escape from that responsibility.
And one piece of trivia – BillG, on the power afforded by MS and its fortunes, pushes western-style IP rights onto developing world under the guise of help. Which will have a direct impact for example on the future availability of crucially important, inexpensive generic medicines.
Thank you Microsoft for going after the freeloaders and making them pay their dues.
Another blow in the bow of Android.
Is this meant sarcastically?, else I feel sorry for you.
What did Tony Soprano say when he heard that Microsoft’s mafia-style tactics resulted in Samsung making a smartphone OS payoff to MS?
“Bada Bing!”
get it????
Thank you, I’m here all week. Try the veal… or else…
Edited 2011-09-29 15:34 UTC
Samsung, you helped me to decide between you and HTC, great news for HTC.
Um, HTC was already paying MS license fees for Android phones.
I cannot believe that you are really that naive or biased to write things like this.
Do you truly think that Samsung will pay $15 per Android device built without surely knowing that MSFT has the goods on them? Absurd!
These are all big boys. Look how hard Samsung is fighting Apple. If MSFT did not show Samsung the patents in questions and after reviewing them by Samsung legal team, would they just pay out of the love or goodness of their heart toward MSFT?
Of course not. MSFT has the patents and that is why all the big boys are paying MSFT. It is not extortion, except for the likes of all the fans that do not understand business decisions. Samsung, HTC, etc, would do the same thing if they could. Google would also do the same, except they decided to take a chance on Android and pay no one any royalties, and now they find themselves on the spot along with the phone manufacturers that believed that Google was the total owner of Android.
Did you read the internal Google email regarding Android? Did you see that Rubin ( who sold Android to Google) worked at Sun when his superiors were developing some of the patents for Java?
So in your world, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle should just let it go, and forget about it.
Who will innovate if they will not get the rewards of their efforts and creations? Who? You, me? Not everybody is Google, trying to get away with code that do not belong to them, hoping they will not be found out.
Stealing, even software and code, it is still stealing.
Don’t ever forget that, in your haste to assign blame for all these IT legal wrangling going on today!
Shit example. Samsung has already got a world-wide legal war with Apple going down. If that’s not reason enough for them not to want to start another one, the fact that Apple and MS want very different things, is.
Doesn´t Samsung have enough patents to reach a cross licensing agreement or something similar or at least pay less money? Microsoft should infringe some of them.
Most of Samsung’s patent portfolio would be hardware, not software. Aside from going after something like the 360, there’s not a lot else they could try to hobble.