Patent Riches: Like HTC, Samsung will pay Microsoft for using Android

[the_sleuth]

Google develops Android, pays for further development, pays to support Android Market and only collects on Ads. While Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank for being a patent troll. Viva la Balmer!


Samsung to pay Microsoft to use Android: Extortion or partnership?
September 28, 2011 | 7:32 pm

Microsoft on Wednesday announced a cross-licensing of its patent portfolio with Samsung that will leave Samsung paying a royalty to Microsoft for each smartphone and tablet it sells running Google's Android operating system.

Samsung will also "agreed to cooperate in the development and marketing of Windows Phone," Microsoft said in a statement, describing the agreements as a partnership.

Google, obviously unhappy that the largest seller of Android phones will pay Microsoft to use an operating system Google doesn't charge anyone to use, described the agreements with a patently different word -- extortion.

"This is the same tactic we've seen time and again from Microsoft," Google said in a statement to the website TechCrunch. "Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others' achievements and hinder the pace of innovation. We remain focused on building new technology and supporting Android partners."

The deal with Samsung is similar to other Microsoft has struck with companies such as Acer, Onkyo, ViewSonic, General Dynamics Itronix, Velocity Micro and HTC, among others, in which Microsoft and those companies cross-license patent portfolios as a way to end disputes centering around Android.

One company that hasn't struck such a deal with Microsoft is Motorola Mobility, which Google is awaiting regulatory approval to purchase.

Motorola, at this point, is the last major Android partner left standing not paying Microsoft to use Android. Unlike Samsung and HTC, Motorola doesn't also offer any Windows Phone 7 handsets and runs only Android on its phones and tablets.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...microsoft.html

[Wretch 64]

It's not really a surprise - it's just another example of how Microsoft play dirty and also the "failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others' achievements and hinder the pace of innovation." part.

[Paladinleeds]

Ah Microsoft... you cheating backstabbing innovationless dummies... I'll use Windows 7 on my PC due to the software I use only working on Windows (SAM Broadcaster) but this proves why my MacBook is better... And we all know how backstabbing Apple are!

[xterra2]

Free microsoft people
Its google they are a patent troll
Remeber how Google copied Sun microsystem code on java ? They copied it line by line

Google isn't free like ballmer said

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[lnichols]

Google is trying to use "free" software, that obviously contains intellectual property that MS has people dead to rights on cause they are paying them, to get revenue from advertising. MS, RIM and Apple have all had to pay their fair share of royalties, R&D, etc for their products. So why do people think that Google should be able buy an OS to dump out there for free and not have to pay royalties and licensing for technologies that they didn't innovate? Yes these companies are suing to either halt Android sales, or incentive them to pay for an OS they own by making them pay for the intellectual property that Google wants to steal. You better believe that Google would do the same to any search engine competitor that was dumping stuff they owned the IP on.

[Economist101]

Originally Posted by lnichols

MS, RIM and Apple have all had to pay their fair share of royalties, R&D, etc for their products. So why do people think that Google should be able buy an OS to dump out there for free and not have to pay royalties and licensing for technologies that they didn't innovate?

It's because they're stupid. Like a Microsoft manager claimed a couple years back, Android is free. . .free like a puppy.

[N8ter]

Originally Posted by Paladinleeds

Ah Microsoft... you cheating backstabbing innovationless dummies... I'll use Windows 7 on my PC due to the software I use only working on Windows (SAM Broadcaster) but this proves why my MacBook is better... And we all know how backstabbing Apple are!

If they are innovation-less, how come they're the ones collecting royalties?

/blinks

I'm confused. Please enlighten me.

If you can...

Thanks to Google for Android. They get to fund Microsoft's Mobile OS development with Royalties, Lol! Think about it. Without Android, Microsoft probably would have just given up. But with it, they get basically free money to fund their mobile division. It's just too ironic...

[rmjones101]

What the article fails to mention is that Microsoft and Samsung entered into a Cross-Licensing agreement.

Yes Samsung will pay licensing for Microsoft patents. But what hasn't been made transparent is what Microsoft is paying in return to license from Samsung. In a Cross-Licensing agreement, both parties are licensing from each other.

This is just media hype bent towards sensationalizing patent wars. Yes patent wars do exist, and is in serious need of reform. But in this example, there's nothing really nefarious about it.

[i7guy]

Originally Posted by N8ter

If they are innovation-less, how come they're the ones collecting royalties?

/blinks

I'm confused. Please enlighten me.

If you can...

Thanks to Google for Android. They get to fund Microsoft's Mobile OS development with Royalties, Lol! Think about it. Without Android, Microsoft probably would have just given up. But with it, they get basically free money to fund their mobile division. It's just too ironic...

Might as well thank RIM for starting it all then.

[sam_b77]

Honest question here, no trolling, but I would like to know how MS managed this. I'm laughing my head off, but I'm really interested in the details. Can anyone explain a bit further?
Thanks

[N8ter]

Originally Posted by rmjones101

What the article fails to mention is that Microsoft and Samsung entered into a Cross-Licensing agreement.

Yes Samsung will pay licensing for Microsoft patents. But what hasn't been made transparent is what Microsoft is paying in return to license from Samsung. In a Cross-Licensing agreement, both parties are licensing from each other.

This is just media hype bent towards sensationalizing patent wars. Yes patent wars do exist, and is in serious need of reform. But in this example, there's nothing really nefarious about it.

No.

It means Samsung is giving Microsoft access to their IP to avoid getting sued for infringing on Microsoft patents. They're also likely paying Microsoft Royalties for every Android phone they produce as well, which infringes on Microsoft Patents.

Royalties are paid on a pre-use basis. Microsoft doesn't have to pay anything unless it uses Samsung's IP, and since Microsoft isn't getting sued and Samsung didn't counter-sue them (like they did Apple), it's safe to bet that is not the case.

And there's nothing nefarious about pretty much any of the patent wars, IMO. If you infringe on a patent, you have to pay up. Simple as that. Samsung was the only Android OEM who infringed on Apple's Media Player patents, for example. It's not necessarily an Android issue. Samsung just loves to copy stuff.

That being said, Microsoft has pretty much all the top Android Manufacturers paying them royalties on every phone they sell. That's ironic. It also means that Google cannot attack Microsoft by proxy the way it did Apple with the patents it (or was it Motorola) sold to HTC.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the strength of Microsoft's patent portfolio as it pertains to Mobile. They have a lot there, and they invest a ton into R&D.

[kbz1960]

So MS does something like this most likely due to contracts signed some time ago and they are evil. Apple sues over patents and they get a pat on the back.

[rmjones101]

Originally Posted by N8ter

No.

It means Samsung is giving Microsoft access to their IP to avoid getting sued for infringing on Microsoft patents. They're also likely paying Microsoft Royalties for every Android phone they produce as well, which infringes on Microsoft Patents.

In a Cross-Licensing deal, both parties provide payment or services to the other. Samsung isn't just giving Microsoft access to their IP. If they did that without any compensation, then Samsung would have to offer a similar deal to anybody else who wants to license their patents.

Samsung isn't worried about getting sued by Microsoft. Microsoft wants Samsung to sell their WP7+ phones. If it were a one-sided deal in favor of Microsoft, Samsung would be better off by just paying similar royalties to Microsoft as HTC does, then simply not produce devices for Microsoft. Which obviously Microsoft does not want to happen.

Samsung simply hasn't made transparent what they're getting out of the deal.