Posted on 04/28/2010 6:15:15 AM PDT by dangerdoc
The lawyers up in Redmond seem to have been woken from their slumber with the sudden realization that -- oh look! -- Google's Android OS infringes on Microsoft's boatload of software patents.
How specifically it does so is not identified, but Microsoft believes that elements from both the user interface and the underlying operating system are in violation of its rights. This is very much in keeping with the Windows maker's crusade to assert patent claims over Linux, which in the past has garnished it with cross-licensing deals with Amazon and Xandros, as well as a settlement from TomTom.
Lawsuits are not yet being discussed here, but lest you think this is a small-time disturbance, HTC has already decided to shorten its list of troubles by ponying up for a license from Microsoft for "running the Android mobile platform." Yes, that does sound ludicrous, but it's now an unfortunate fact that a major Android phone manufacturer is having to pay Microsoft royalties to use Google's operating system.
And all this from a company (Microsoft) which stole Apple’s OS years ago....
I’m on a waiting list for a HTC HD 2. But it runs Windows mobile.
Get the Verizon Incredible....same phone, but runs Android.
Besides MS-Dos not being similar to Apple BASIC, MS did not steal anything from Apple as so many Appletons would have people believe the US Courts have backed that up.
“Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple’s Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, “Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law]...”[1] Because Mac’s GUI was heavily based on unlicensed GUI developed before by Xerox,[citation needed] in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds.[2] The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file suit, and the statute of limitations had expired.[citation needed] Apple lost all claims in the suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and file folder icons from Hewlett-Packard’s NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994[1], and Apple’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.”
Phones are like computers now, outdated right after you get them.
I love my Droid considering up until this point I had a crappy flip phone.
It’s amazing....
But, it is already outdated...lol. At least it’s good enough to run Flash when that’s released later this year, something that won’t be released for the iPhone ever.
Basically, the court ruled is was not stolen because of no patent - not that it was not actually stolen.
There is conjecture out there that MS is getting copyright deals with many smaller companies because they infact do hold similar patents(duh) and they have the legal muscle to push back against Apple who has been rattling the lawsuit battle horns against many companies. By saying yeah we infringed against MS it will make Apple think twice against going into a big legal battle over the technologies(especially since some of the patents have to do with Exchange based technologies and possibly Office).
No the court ruled that it can’t be stolen, a totally different concept.
Assuming the summary above is correct, it sounds more like it couldn't be stolen [from Apple] because it wasn't original Apple work, and it Xerox no longer had an enforceable interest in it, because they allowed it to be used for too long before complaining.
You may want to re-read that a bit more closely. Apple stole it from XEROX, but XEROX didn’t copyright their work and take legal action in time to enforce it.
So Apple STOLE their design from XEROX.
I am speaking about Apple v MS not Xerox v Apple. In the case of Apple v MS it was clear that Apple could not patent the idea of a GUI. But could patent aspects of it(such as the findings against HP).
Doesn’t sound like they ever got to the issue of if Apple stole from Xerox. Since Xerox received compensation for Apple looking at their project it isn’t a foregone conclusion that if they had sued in time they would have won.
What’s even worse is that they stole DOS itself from Gary Kildall
Good point. But those that say MS stole from Apple would have to agree that Apple stole from Xerox. But that’s only assuming if you think Apple stole from Microsoft.
I don’t think the situation is similar. My understanding is Apple paid to get a look at what they were doing and only saw the end result and not the code to build the GUI. On the other hand, MS saw the code Apple was using and did not pay. I have a limited understanding of what all went down, but that is my understanding.
I believe that Kildall was compensated around $50k so it wasn’t theft.
IIRC, you are correct. They worked out a sweet deal with IBM to sell them the product and then bought the rights to DOS cheap.
Kildall could have gotten a better price directly from IBM but business is all about knowing the right people and making the deal.
I have mixed feeling about Microsoft but you have to admit, Gates certainly knows how to close a deal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.