|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 05:21 PM EDT |
Agreed. Especially since Microsoft is earning $10/device
patent royalties on Android devices for a handful of
questionable software patents, but grumbling about paying
$2/device royalties on others' software patents. Microsoft is
nothing but a den of thieves. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
Can we now expect a queue of disgruntled Android device makers at the
courthouse, seeking a judicial review of their extortion
licensing deals?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 08:01 PM EDT |
M$ doesn't need to defend their extortion rates, after all, they don't bother to
participate in standards.
In fact, their whole agenda seems to be: Essential patents should be limited to
a rate that favors M$, while worthless non-essential (i.e. M$) patents should be
subject to a rate that assures M$ will always come out ahead.
Or to state another way: Essential patents should be worthless, while worthless
patents should be essential (for everyone else). IP strategy by 1984's Ministry
of Freedom.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 30 2013 @ 04:47 AM EDT |
I think you are missing the bigger picture. Microsoft does probably don't care
much about the money at stake here...making sure that GPL users can never
implement a standard on the other hand would probably be very hard on the
wishlist.
Getting the cost down for standards essentiell patents is probably smart if you
want to lessen the risk that somebody succeed with killing of software patents.
The whole issue of RAND patents is a minefield for Open Source and it certainly
seems like Microsoft prefer to keep it that way.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
