All these patent lawsuits are getting a little out of control. I think the patent office dropped the ball in granting some of these. I would tend to agree with Microsoft's position based on the very little information that I have. Afaik Motorola doesn't even have their grubby fingers in the pie that is console gaming so they aren't in direct competition for that portion of the market.
Motorola owns patents for a massive amount of technology that companies all around the world use. It seems common technology to most yet Motorola invented, and has a patent on it from years back. Companies should just start licensing technology properly and we wouldnt have so many lawsuits. Now what some companies do, about taking someone else's technology and bribing someone to grant a patent off of someone elses work is just wrong, but that is a whole other issue. Also, Google = Motorola.
It's getting to the point that doing business in technology sectors is just a dumb idea in the US and parts of Europe. Patent law in those sectors is just an anti-competitive farce; it would be easier just to pack your bags and set up your business in east Asia, and trade with the US illegally with complete disregard for patents and copyrights.
Agreed, when it's difficult not to accidentally infringe a patent, something is badly wrong with the system. Technologies protected by patents are supposed to be of the sort that you'd only easily be able to copy if you found out about them.
dont you just love some of the basic things ppl sue over lol..... well should say some stupid things. OMG the gaming controller uses some of the same tech motorola has used..... 5 yrs later we are suing even over something thats been on the market for a few yrs now
to be fair, components and configurations change with each type. AFAIK this lawsuit would only effect the S type model, which is also the only one that MS officially sells at this point.
The article doesn't mention when the lawsuit was filed, just that the recommendation to ban it came out now. Lawsuits can take a while to get from filing to judgements. Also: This isn't Motorola's lawsuit. It's Microsoft's. Which means that Microsoft started this off by suing Motorola over patents, then Motorola responded. Had MS not started this off, Motorola would have probably sat on the patents and only used them to scare off anyone threatening a patent lawsuit. Microsoft bullying other companies with patents*. Motorola had the money and will to fight back. Now Microsoft is regretting their choice of victim. *Patent threats are how MS is Earning more from Android phones than Windows 7 phones
So uh... it looks like this goes a lot deeper than just the one thing. There's already an injunction pending that bans Motorola-built phones from the US: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/05/itc-motorola-android-ban-microsof/ The lawsuit was filed on Nov 22 2010 - some more details here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/06/microsofts-dispute-with-motorola.html (a year old now but still) As far as I can figure, what is going on seems to be roughly as follows: Motorola holds patents relating to H.264, which they will licence, but Microsoft believes the royalties (2.25% of the value of products that use them) are unreasonable Thus, MS fired off lawsuits starting from late 2010 dealing with this, but also seem to have started infringement lawsuits against Motorola's products Motorola countersued about the use of the H.264 (and some wireless) patents in Microsoft products Currently it looks like the companies are basically trading import bans against each other, but it looks like Microsoft is better positioned to weather the storm Injunction trading may be an attempt to pressure Motorola into settling? I'm not actually sure the XBox 360 thing wasn't foreseen. It's also not the only thing that might be affected; I noticed Windows 7 was in the list in Germany. It also appears that an existing pre-emptive ruling would block any attempt to enforce the 360 ban for some time anyway: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/motorola-said-seattle-frand-case-could.html Software patents: such BS. None of this is constructive. Edit: Er. Wow. I'm inclined to agree that Motorola's licencing terms are ridiculous actually: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-egCdCQfOY...ryUnYncE/s1600/MMI+%27RAND%27+offer+H.264.png
Your mistake there is listening to Florian Mueller. When it comes to him predicting outcomes involving software patents, he is consistently wrong (but that doesn't stop him being quoted as an expert for the next patent case.). For example, go look at his coverage over Oracle's lawsuit against Google. Note how confident he seems on Oracle's chances. The lawsuit was over Google copying java into Android phones. At the time, Sun said that what Google was doing was fine with them. Then Oracle bought Sun, and all the patents involved, and didn't want to be held to Sun's word. Don't forget that Software patents regularly get rejected at reexamination, usually for prior art, meaning using software patents against anyone that can do research is a bad idea. That lawsuit ended recently. Google wasn't found to be infringing anything, except 9 lines of code that might not even count for copyright protection. Definitely not the Billions Florian was talking about at the start of this lawsuit. What does FM say about those 9 lines ? No mention that this fair use argument is over a measly 9 lines of code. Overall I agree that software patents are bullshit*. The sooner a company big enough is hurt bad enough by them that they want the law changed to get rid of them, the better. Until then, millions will be spent on lawsuits among the big players, all of whom are squashing any smaller players that look like a threat. Banning the Xbox might be a big enough stick to change MS's mind. As for the banned Motorola phones, note this from your first article: A simple software change, and the phones can be imported again. Annoying, but not a problem. *Especially the part where, if you look at patents to see if you're infringing, but don't interpret them the way the lawyers do (an interpretation that will keep changing until a court makes them nail it down), then that's willful infringement and an automatic triple damages.
Yeah, it's not the only patent lawsuit against Motorola phones though; some sounded a bit tougher but the question is whether they'll stick. But, at least that makes it obvious why so-called "wilful infringement" is quite common. It's not something that anyone would rationally do considering the price tag that can come with it, regardless of the importance of the feature in question (see: i4i). I am aware that MS is already lobbying for patent reform largely thanks to things such as i4i and presumably now Motorola (though Google and Apple were on the same bandwagon I think; it just didn't go anywhere). But I'm not convinced it's the right change, and this turn of events isn't helping that perception. The use of software patents (and telecommunications, often) these days rarely seems to have anything to do with the reasons patents were instituted in the first place - namely, to provide an incentive for R&D. That R&D is going to happen in the software field one way or another anyway - you don't automatically lose if somebody copies your idea (in > 90% of cases). Design is a different issue, but there are other IP protection measures for that (which is what Apple dinged Samsung on with their tablets). Unless software patent reform eliminates, or mostly eliminates, the granting of patents where they aren't required for the software development to take place, it isn't really going to do its job. If the only realistic way to prevent their abuse is to repeal them altogether, it may be in the public interest to do that.
Getting rid of software patents seems the best way. The Patent office gets paid for each patent granted, so they have every incentive to get the processed as fast as possible, no incentive to make sure only valid patents get through. When a software patent is used in a lawsuit, one method of defense against it is to argue that the patent is invalid and ask the patent office to reexamine it. Most software patents don't survive the reexamination (usually because the patent is for something that someone else did first*), but reexaminations cost money. So invalid patents survive because a lot of companies can't/won't spend the money to fight them when it's often cheaper to just surrender. *Meaning researching history can defeat many of them. Now think about how stupid it was for Oracle to sue Google over software patents. The only reason that trial was over so quickly was because Oracle wanted it to finish before the patent office could finish reexamining one of the patents involved (Oracle had been told to chose its 10 best patents. At that point, all but two had been declared invalid), Google wanted to wait, the judge went with Oracle.
I know this isn't the popular opinion, but I like the way China does things. They ignore all copyright laws. Knowledge should be free to every human to do with as they please! If it can benefit the human race, why should companies be allowed to gouge our pockets for it? Monetary wealth is SO overrated. Go outside and smell some flowers The world has so much more to offer than materialistic commodities.
Communism is great in theory, but you need to give people an incentive to make stuff and be creative or they just ... get lazy. Because why wouldn't they? It's not like working your ass off would pay any better. The technology industry is a very difficult problem to "solve" (i.e. optimal results for humanity at large), and it's not going to be fixed by simplistic solutions. China is beginning to look more seriously at intellectual property enforcement because it realises that (although dragging its heels does, incidentally, give it a competitive advantage).