Licensing is a fair, non-monopolistic way to settle patent infringement. The fact that Android thrives despite the fee is proof of that. Microsoft is using the system as intended. The validity of the patent is another matter, but the companies paying the fee don't seem to be interested in settling it.
>the companies paying the fee don't seem to be interested in settling it.
I think most of the companies are not interested in a protracted legal battle with a partner many of them still rely on for licensing arrangements in other businesses. Microsoft is just playing "good cop" to Apple's existential "bad cop" threat. Doesn't mean they like paying tolls to Redmond.
I'll take that over weaponized patents. Microsoft is showing restraint, even if it's only because of their mutual interest in knocking Apple down a peg. I'll criticize Microsoft as soon as they use those patents to block competitors.
Extorting fees for every Android device sold shows restraint? Maybe by comparison to Apple, but I prefer not to grade on a curve.
And as for blocking competitors, how many vendors have looked at Android and reconsidered due to the current litigation environment and imposed fees? I don't have an exact number, but I'd bet on "at least one". So, please criticize away. :)
Is it every device? I haven't been able to find a good overview that lists companies that have signed on and companies that haven't, or details on the specific patents. I couldn't speculate on what might have been without more information.
I don't see much in the way of details. It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want. By that understanding, a licensee could use Metro or something derived from it.
My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something. Especially if a company with patents has one the manufacturer wants to use.
If only settling with Microsoft indemnified ODMs from future litigation risk!
This is not about providing a cheap alternative to patent-related legal services, it's about a dynastic enterprise using the threat of a flawed patent system against it's partners and former partners to regain lost competitive advantage in the market place!
The silver lining is still a silver lining just for Microsoft. Sales of Windows phone 7 speak for themselves (and the ODMs)
> It looks like a blanket license, which isn't a bad thing if Microsoft has something other companies want.
"Not getting sued" should not need to be a product.
> My understanding is that patent-related legal services are extremely expensive. A few dollars per device is easier to deal with than months of patent research every time a manufacturer wants to change something.
As I said, I don't want to grade on a curve. Both of those options suck.
