Microsoft, IBM Want to Seal Patents Agreements With Samsung 126
sfcrazy writes "The court battle between Apple and Samsung has created the possibility of disclosing the cross patent agreement between Microsoft and Samsung. Microsoft is suddenly scared and has filed a motion asking the court to seal the cross license agreement. I would like to remind that the Judge has asked both parties to make all the filings in this dispute available to the public for free."
And on Monday, IBM filed for a restraining order to prevent Reuters from publishing their agreement with Samsung as well.
Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:3, Insightful)
It couldn't even barely be possible that Microsoft wants to follow the mobile companies common practice of cross licensing almost all of their patents.
This includes one of the pioneers of mobile industry, Nokia, as well as they could stop licensing their technology and make the other companies really suffer. But the armchair generals and armchair CEO's on Slashdot think everything is outright war between technology companies. In fact it's not.
Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:4, Funny)
oh but nokia's been xlicensing traditionally, since that was the old way mobile companies worked and kept new entrants from coming. ms/nokia and apple/nokia and ms/apple full cross licensing deals kind of step on that though.
that they don't want the deals public is a bit shitty for the common stockholder though.
the real reason I suspect MS wanting to seal the documents is that they state that when you're big enough you can get MS licenses for android in exchange of giving WP phones a shot - along with patent licenses to whatever both platforms need.
Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:5, Insightful)
Denied (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the IBM motion has already been denied. If IBM can't get it, there's a fair chance Microsoft won't, either.
One of the big reasons this is interesting is that we might finally find out exactly what patents Microsoft thinks that Linux violates.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like we'll be reading lots of good stuff from Groklaw very soon.
LoB
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, haven't you heard? Android has a Linux (-derived) kernel. Samsung signed a patent cross-license with Microsoft to avoid getting sued for using Linux. It came with the usual Microsoft patent license condition, that Samsung not tell anyone the details, because if the details became public then Linux could be re-engineered to avoid Microsoft's patents. So if we get to see the agreement, we (may) get to see the list of patents Microsoft thinks Linux violates.
Re:What is there to hide ? (Score:5, Informative)
It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.
More than likely it has to do with the various companies they've cross-licensed with finding out who got sweetheart deals and who got totally screwed over.
"Hey, why am I paying ten times what he's paying?!?!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the companies would be investigated for monopolistic behaviour, that's even more reason for the court to make that knowledge public or at the very least warrant further investigation.
No, more likely it's just about money and secrets, which is how MS operate and make the former. They don't want people to know who's bought what, for how much, and what it entails because that might surprise other people who've got different deals or were told no deal was available.
More likely, it's a purely selfish reason
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Based off of user ID, you must both be new here...now get off my lawn...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Patens MIGHT be Public. The problem is more in what's claimed to be infringing. In truth, the deal itself isn't of real interest- but what the deal was over, which is also not being discussed by the "rights holder" (and SHOULD be made public...) is what is of interest.
Re: (Score:2)
The patents are open and that isn't being challenged in the slightest.
Microsoft is simply asking the judge to please not reveal to the world how much they paid for something.
Do you want your employer to publish the details of your salary and benefits and work hours? Is them not doing so the same as them hiding that they are employing you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want your employer to publish the details of your salary and benefits and work hours?
My salary and work hours are not part of one of the biggest patent disputes in recent history.
Further, I think many people would benefit from having all of that information readily available, as it would force the companies they work for to justify the wages they're giving some people.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're that worried about those sorts of things getting out, maybe that's a sign to not do such things then, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
It is far more likely that different companies get different rates depending on how well they negotiate and how much they have to offer in return.
A good example is the Nook. They really had nothing in terms of patents to counter with. I guess that's why they were considered a pretty weak target. But they got so outraged and vocal about their opposition, that Microsoft just had to shovel lots of money their way just to keep them quiet about the whole scam.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you're post is still only rated 2 and I have no mod points.
LoB
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft does not want to disclose which patents they're using to get royalties for Android/Linux. Apart from the VFAT patent, it is not publicly known which 235 patents Microsoft claim to own that cover the Linux kernel - they only reveal that to parties they approach to intimidate, a really bizarre and perverse state of affairs if you ask me.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Two things. One, there are no software patents in Europe. Two, money. The Linux Foundation doesn't have tens of millions of dollars to piss away on lawyers. Microsoft has hundreds of millions of dollars to piss away on lawyers. No point in starting a fight where you're outfunded by an order of magnitude.
Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:4, Informative)
One, there are no software patents in Europe.
Wrong, but the obviousness requirement is applied much more stringently so there are far fewer software patents granted. Getting a patent for being 6 months ahead of the competition is a problem, getting one for being 15 years ahead is not.
Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:5, Informative)
The 2005 vote in the EU parliament dismissed the idea of software patents with 648 out of 729 votes.
Besides, the individual member states don't agree so the EU commission does not have much chance to ever enforce these patents.
Now there is the possibility to patent a specific model of hardware like a phone including the firmware within but it's not easy or anywhere close to the US system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given that this page exists in Europe and hasn't been forcibly taken down?
http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html [videolan.org]
Pretty much. You can't enforce software patents alone in Europe. When you put them into hardware (e.g. a TV that decode H.264, for instance), things become a little more tricky, and there is still "licensing", just not necessarily patent licensing going on.
For example, the people who developed the VLC implementation and library actually license their version to other people for a fee. It'
Re: (Score:1)
Since 1985 the EU patent office keeps a registry where you can deposit plans that could be turned into patents even though the relevant law of 1978 does specifically not recognise computer programs a patentable.
The 2005 vote in the EU parliament dismissed the idea of software patents with 648 out of 729 votes.
I hear this a lot, but if you look at some actual cases, you find out software patents are valid and enforced in EU. Maybe there are less software patents than in US but they are there. Look for example at this case: http://www.dailytech.com/German+Judge+Bans+Androids+for+SwipeUnlocking+Despite+Prior+Art/article24027.htm [dailytech.com]
Swipe to unlock IMO is software patent - you input something using the touchscreen and the software in the phone performs some action.
Maybe this is just german specific and is unenforcable i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Impressive ... considering you're claiming the EU had a patent office 8 years before it was formed ... Its impressive that the EU has government bureaucracy that comes before the government even exists.
You are splitting hairs/names. The European Economic Community (EEC) was formed in 1958 and gradually grew into what we today know as European Union (EU), the change in the organizations name followed the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation, including all EEC/EU members, that was set up in 1977.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a patent for being 6 months ahead of the competition is a problem, getting one for being 15 years ahead is not.
Once you've gone to market, however, how do we know you were really 15 years ahead, and not only 6 months?
Re: (Score:1)
I do, as a defensive measure. And I work with my employer to release my software under GPLv3, so if someone tries to make a business plan out of my work and not publish their modificatons, we have some leverage to get it published. This came up about.... 5 years ago on a project I did, that had a 10 year old patent. The original work was dual GPL/BSD licensed, and sure enough, some company tried to fold it into their product and refused to publish their modifications, so guess who'd get calls when they brok
Re: (Score:3)
I do, as a defensive measure
Funny, the people who build land mines say the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck was the point of releasing under the BSD license?
Re: (Score:2)
Because most of the companies that promote Linux are nowhere near as powerful as Microsoft is in the legal arena. Further, most of Microsoft's stuff is not open source, making it much harder to actually prove infringement occurred.
MSFT investors lied to (Score:5, Interesting)
No, Microsoft has released details of the claimed license, by Samsung of its 'Android patents'. But leaks came out that Sammy would get 'marketing money' back from Microsoft, and lo and behold they did.
Here's Microsoft and their fake claim to IP rights over Android:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15106889
Here's money back from MS to Samsung:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/16/2050244/microsoft-pays-44-million-to-samsung-and-nokia-for-mango-marketing
Now suddenly they want the real details sealed? Yet they were keen to claim it was a patent license for IP claims over Android!
MSFT Investors need to wonder what the truth is here, because Samsung doesn't mind the unsealing, but yet MS does? But MS were the ones making the public claim, not Samsung!!
Re:Microsoft is suddenly scared? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait, what now? Slashdot's summaries are starting to get quite childish. Microsoft is scared, really?
Normally I would agree with you, in the name of professionalism and all. However, in this case the greater issue is that Microsoft is actually not scared, so the statement is factually incorrect. What TFA actually states is (no joke, paragraph 2):
Microsoft's hair is on fire about it
Obviously this is not a cause for Microsoft to be "scared," because its fearless leader doesn't have hair [wikipedia.org]. It would be more accurate for the summary to state, "Microsoft execs are laughing themselves to sleep tonight after a pointless attempt by Apple to set Steve Ballmer's hair on fire."
Realistically, even if Ballmer had hair, this wouldn't set it on fire. Microsoft has a long history of doing things that either land it in court (bundling, monopoly abuse, etc.) or result in throwing huge sums of money away (Windows Phone 7 [wikipedia.org], Zune [wikipedia.org], 5 billion lost on the Xbox [wikipedia.org], Ultimate TV [wikipedia.org], Actimates [wikipedia.org], BOB [wikipedia.org], SPOT [wikipedia.org], Kin [wikipedia.org], etc.), but none of those things set his dome on fire because Wall Street doesn't care as long as the majority of the world's personal computers are running Windows. I'm not saying Wall Street is correct in doing so, but stock prices rarely have much to do with a company's actual performance, and most public companies teams are focused on "shareholder value." And the shareholders always let Microsoft come out of this stuff unscathed. If this were something that materially threatened Windows or Office, Ballmer's dome might be on fire. But we're not likely to see that show until the new Surface is released and the strategic partners Microsoft just blew off decide what they want to do about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously this is not a cause for Microsoft to be "scared," because its fearless leader doesn't have hair [wikipedia.org]
How do you know it's the hair on his head they mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what now? Slashdot's summaries are starting to get quite childish.
Starting to??? /facepalm
yes (Score:2)
in a word, yes. Or as other sites say "Microsoft's hair is on fire". (as noted elsewhere)
Microsoft wants to keep their patent settlements high and the risk of DOJ investigations low. They have a lot of negative press awaiting if their shakedowns are mae public. Also on groklaw: "IBM's motion has been denied [PDF] by the magistrate judge. Reuters gets to publish" So it appears that an IBM agreement will be able to be published.
Pretty much the second big companies that have questionable settlements are made p
Re: (Score:2)
But the courts and public (and lawmakers) have never really been informed of what these deals entail... Even though 90% of tech industry patents would fall under these.
This is the kind of thing that can push for REAL REFORM... Nobody with the cross license deals WANTS the situation fixed. They essentially have their own little "extra legal" club going on the big guys use to bully little guys with actual innovation.
Steve wanted to protect his patents or burn down the house... THAT is why the big kids don't
Nerf bat in play (Score:2)
Re:Nerf bat in play (Score:5, Insightful)
Methinks we're going to see who the real villains are in this story. Apple may be evil and all, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Note that Apple being villain and all is all due to the fact that they make their patent dispute public, unlike the rest of the field which hides it under a thick veil of secrecy. I'd be very interested to know exactly who gets paid what over there.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
The reason Apple does it publicly, is that they have to defend their image as spectacularly innovative. They couldn't just have handed over the patents to a proxy and sued with that - although it would have been a lot less risky. They need to defend the idea that rounded corners are innovative, not just in court but in public opinion as well (at least, the part of the public that buys their products).
Re: (Score:2)
The part of the public that buys their product will be very willing to continue buying their product. Because it's the evil Samsung stealing from their beloved Apple. A court decision will not change their mind, any more than it would change our minds if Apple won.
Re: (Score:3)
Eventually, maybe, when they get any competitors which would require such a monster portfolio to stop.
Right now, the junior partner, patent disadvantaged due to its young age, is Google. It is the indirect target of all these lawsuits, the monster they want to stop. It's just too popular (not least in Washington) to sue directly without a
Re: (Score:2)
It is the indirect target of all these lawsuits
No, it's not. Take the tinfoil hat off. Everything in the patents is stuff that Samsung themselves have done. Nothing to do with Android. It's all things that Samsung has added to their phones.
Re: (Score:1)
Eventually Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung and every other rat-bastard corporation is going to form a patent pool and use it to lock out competitors in the mobile space.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure. Apple has publicly claimed at several occasions that they dislike the patent system and find it hurtful. And in the long run, the suing spree that Apple is currently leading could do a lot of good. Already some judges have made public statements that the patent system is just out of control.
All in all, Apple is raising awareness on the silliness of the patent system, and I think that's good. And I can't imagine that nobody at Apple is aware of that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? they declared patents hurtful? Was this before or after they declared that they will sue all their competitors and claimed that the competitors "stole" from them things that apple never even developed?
Re:Nerf bat in play (Score:4, Interesting)
It was well after they had started their suing spree. The way I see it is this: If you want to be competitive and survive you have to play by the rules. The rules state that you can't use some stuff that is patented without explicit permission and/or licensing fees which are not guaranteed to be granted or even fair unless your patent if a FRAND one. If ${BigCorp} wants to be competitive they have to enforce those rules on their patent, to counteract the fact that they're paying everyone up on theirs and thus bleeding money to the competition with no counterpart.
Apple's stance is not to license, but to restrict which is their perfect right. Some people don't like it.
The fact that they play by today's rules is a necessity. It doesn't imply at all that they like the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Was this before or after they declared that they will sue all their competitors
I'm guessing it was back before then, when all of their competitors were suing them. Or don't you remember when Apple was the patent whipping boy, and everyone from Nokia to Kodak to Creative was using patents to sue the crap out of them?
Or is it only a bad thing when it's a company you don't like doing the suing?
Re: (Score:2)
when was apple ever the patent whipping boy? They are the ones that pretty much kicked this mess into high gear.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they are, actually. They're the ones that forced Apple to take such an aggressive stance on patents.
And if you'd actually do your research, you'd find that they had gotten the crap sued out of them through most of the 2000s, especially when they first came out with the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is for the link [tomshardware.com]. There are plenty of other reports if you want.
Here is another link [slashdot.org] to another response that illustrate that what Apple is doing it not necessarily what Apple would like to be doing.
Re:Nerf bat in play (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this has anything to do with "image". Rather they realise that this is a critical time in cornering a market that will continue to pay off for them for a long time.
Just like the iPod made the iPhone purchase a "no brainer" for many people the iPhone makes (or will make) the iPad or Apple TV (etc etc) a no brainer. Once people are invested in the iTunes/Appstore ecosystem they are more likely to stay there (and keep spending more money there).
Removing credible alternatives to the iPhone from the market doesn't just mean more iPhone sales now, it means more recurring sales down the road too.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents ARE A MONOPOLY. There is no LEGAL reason Apple has to share. Apple wants to SELL iPhones. They want to protect that multi billion $$$ from poachers. There are plenty of ways to make tablets and phones that aren't "just like" iDevices.
I'm reminded of the Dyson Vacuum commercial. They were the first ones to make bagless vacuums really work and to sell them.. Then every body started copying. If you're not going to ENFORCE legit patents, why play the game?
Re: (Score:2)
It is inconsistent to be so high and mighty about your own innovation (which is in reality not much more than a thin but well thought out veneer) while you are so clearly standing on the shoulders of giants. Indeed this is why I t
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it is public is because Apple are using their patents in the courts to restrict competition from entering the market rather than licencing for a reasonable sum to make money.
And licensing fees doesn't keep competition out?
Re: (Score:1)
They couldn't just have handed over the patents to a proxy and sued with that -
It actually seems they do. http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/09/apple-made-a-deal-with-the-devil-no-worse-a-patent-troll/ [techcrunch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They need to defend the idea that rounded corners are innovative
They never claimed rounded corners are "innovative". They did, however, claim that rounded corners are cornerstone of the iPhone/iPad design, and that Samsung blatantly copied that in a way that would confuse consumers.
Re:Nerf bat in play (Score:4, Insightful)
If differing companies are paying differing licensing rates on the same patents it would change all future negotiations. It's no wonder MS and Motorola have filed emergency motions. Who is charging how much for what is something that I doubt most companies want revealing. Particularly Microsoft, with it's claims against Andoid. We know of FAT and probably activesync, but they claim patents on a great deal more.
What I'd like to see is the consequences of this case eventually shedding light on the US Patent Office and why some of the more dubious patents are granted. This case could easily be far wider ranging than it first appears.
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out! There is evil all around you, and there has been for years!
You are surrounded, resistance is futile.
"We all lose cool tech" (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I doubt any of it is much of a brake on real technical progress. The limitation on that, at the moment, is battery technology. And that has been the limitation on mobile technical progress since the first mobile phones.
Re:"We all lose cool tech" (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly (Score:2)
Makes a change from their CEO scaring us (Score:5, Funny)
Which he does [wordpress.com] very well indeed [northupinfo.com].
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not a phrenologist or anything, but anyone with a tongue like that should be treated very suspiciously. It's a sign of the devil.
A really stupid question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It could show a pool of simple buy out innovation ranging from large and small firms bought up/out over many years.
This would show a lower quality of projected in house skill.
Real world testing, prior art claims.
The ratio of look and feel, trade dress vs real world wireless telecom physics.
Legal questions over the quality and use of patents could dilute a strong legal and US political position in other cases.
Of course it should be made public (Score:3)
If you're expecting the state to pay because you throw your toys out of the pram then everything should be made public.
Don't want your dirty laundry aired in public, then either grow up or pay an independent arbitrator to make the decision. What is it with people wanting to eat their cake and have it too?
Re: (Score:1)
I think I agree with you but I have no idea wtf a pram is.
Re: (Score:1)
i think it's some kind of european train or something
Re:Of course it should be made public (Score:5, Informative)
I think I agree with you but I have no idea wtf a pram is.
Pram is a common shortening of "perambulator" ** -- a baby carriage on wheels. These days they're not so common as baby buggies (smaller lightweight versions) have taken their place as 'traditional' prams were bigger, heavier coachbuilt affairs - more room for the baby and with bigger wheels/better suspension but not very practical for transporting in cars.
Throwing ones toys out of the pram is a common expression in the UK. It's roughly equivalent to "throwing a hissy fit" / "having a tantrum" -- ie exhibiting impotent rage and/or childish behaviour, making a lot of noise and fuss yet gaining nothing but causing inconvenience to others as they have to retrieve them [or not]
** Perambulator - in the sense it let the baby and carer go for a walk (perambulate) -- Old fashioned and I don't know anyone who still says perambulator these days [or even said it in my childhood many years ago]
Prams versus baby buggies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A pram is a type of baby carriage.
Re: (Score:2)
Parameter random access memory. It's what you zap when your mac starts acting a little.... errrr..oh... never mind
Re: (Score:2)
Pram == Prambulator == Baby Carriage
Re: (Score:1)
Also it's Apple and Samsung that are throwing their toys out of whatever a pram is, Microsoft was just standing nearby and got hit by one of them.
According to the Groklaw link... (Score:5, Informative)
...IBM's motion to prevent Reuters from publishing what IBM gave them has been denied already. Those of a conspiracy turn of mind will now cue the old boy network where IBM execs get together with Reuter's execs at the Old Boys Club and work out what Reuters gets for not publishing after all.
Reuters may gleefully print the whole thing, but that seems unlikely. More likely they'll excerpt it anyway, even without any alleged backroom deals.
I know I know, I read TFA. I'm sorry... it won't happen again.
Re: (Score:2)
Areyoukiddingme?!
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, what they would get for not publishing is not sued for publishing. They request for an order for them not to publish was denied as a prior restraint, which doesn't require the court to find that the publication
They want other corporate partners not to know (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion they don't want to keep only the public from viewing these agreements, they want the other corporate partners not to know the details, because they could use it to renegotiate the terms.
Imagine this hypothetical situation:
Microsoft has an agreement both with Sony and with Apple. They both agreed on different but confidential patent agreements.
Sony paid (or swapped) more than Apple.
Apple releases their agreement.
Sony sees this and has a reason to renegotiate.
Re: (Score:2)
Well duh, why would we have a right to know when the dispute in question has nothing to do with Microsoft?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine this hypothetical situation:
Microsoft has an agreement both with Sony and with Apple. They both agreed on different but confidential patent agreements.
Sony paid (or swapped) more than Apple.
Apple releases their agreement.
Sony sees this and has a reason to renegotiate.
As well they should, now that it's public knowledge that everybody copied Sony's phones.
Extortionists fear the light of day, of course (Score:1)