Microsoft wins injunction against Android in Germany

 

Germany is the land of great beer and copious patent infringement cases. If you are keeping score at home, you can now add a W to Microsoft’s column as it just landed an import ban and a German injunction against Motorola’s Android based-devices.

Microsoft now has the ability to enforce today’s ruling by posting a 25 million euro bond and demanding compliance from the company.  This is another big win for Microsoft as they have been battling patent infringement against Android vendors for some time.

This latest victory is an even bigger slam against Google as the company just acquired Motorola Mobility, specifically for their patents. Seeing that Microsoft was able to defeat Motorola Mobility does not reside well for Google who was expecting to use these patents to defend its OS and also help protect its vendors from having to pay Microsoft royalties every time they sell an Android device.

This particular case involved Android’s multi-part text message layer which violated a Microsoft patent.

Source: FOSSpatents

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

3.3 million Windows Phones were shipped in Q1

Next Story

Report: Google-branded tablet coming in July

45 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

this site full of ****in moronic kids who dont know **** about business. and that is why they will be flipping burgers all their lives. not everything is free and must be handed to you.

vcfan said,
this site full of ****in moronic kids who dont know **** about business. and that is why they will be flipping burgers all their lives. not everything is free and must be handed to you.

LOL

Yet, sadly very accurate...

Florian Mueller - the anti-Google campaigner, financed by Apple, Microsoft, and Oracle. He sounds rather pleased with himself in that tweet.

His predictions/coverage was wrong about the Oracle case, so I suppose he needed to deflect it in some way.

I hope Motorola does the same thing Microsoft did and files an injunction against this ruling in the US.

Morden said,
It's time to acknowledge that Android is not a free OS, just a Frankenstein of stolen bits.

Stolen? hahaha. The patent system doesn't care who actually invented an idea, it only cares who is the first to shop it. WP7 came after Android, these features have been on all Android handsets since way before WP7 came to market.

Javik said,

Stolen? hahaha. The patent system doesn't care who actually invented an idea, it only cares who is the first to shop it. WP7 came after Android, these features have been on all Android handsets since way before WP7 came to market.

maybe i am missunderstanding your argument, but this logic contradicts the article.

Morden said,
It's time to acknowledge that Android is not a free OS, just a Frankenstein of stolen bits.

This comment gets 5 likes? O wait this is a M$ fan site..

Javik said,

Stolen? hahaha. The patent system doesn't care who actually invented an idea, it only cares who is the first to shop it. WP7 came after Android, these features have been on all Android handsets since way before WP7 came to market.

um, you do know that Microsoft had mobile OS way before android right?

Javik said,

Stolen? hahaha. The patent system doesn't care who actually invented an idea, it only cares who is the first to shop it. WP7 came after Android, these features have been on all Android handsets since way before WP7 came to market.

no one cares if the patent has been sold, just like Motorola's portfolio which just been consumed by Google... it is a FACT that Android infringes as many patents as it is possible and this was the way Google could sell the lie that it's mobile OS is virtually cost-free

by your logic Android is just a crappy rip-off of previous mobile operating systems, Microsoft and Apple services and some stolen Java implementations - oh wait, you're absolutely right

Javik said,

Stolen? hahaha. The patent system doesn't care who actually invented an idea, it only cares who is the first to shop it. WP7 came after Android, these features have been on all Android handsets since way before WP7 came to market.

Who said anything about WP7? Microsoft had smart phones long before iPhone and Android even existed.

Morden said,
It's time to acknowledge that Android is not a free OS, just a Frankenstein of stolen bits.

I can download, compile it, and run it, all for free. That's a free OS. Go spread your MS F.U.D elsewhere please.

Morden said,

it is a FACT that Android infringes as many patents as it is possible and this was the way Google could sell the lie that it's mobile OS is virtually cost-free

Really? Tell me then, when have Microsoft's patents been tested in court, before a jury? Their FAT patent has already been invalidated.

The failed Oracle patent case illustrates how weak the claims are. Microsoft's continuing attacks against GNU/Linux are failing. This is a desperate attempt to boost their own faltering platform (WP7).

Morden said,

by your logic Android is just a crappy rip-off of previous mobile operating systems .. some stolen Java implementations - oh wait, you're absolutely right

Oracle's case has just collapsed. Don't you keep up with the news? Or is that just selective amnesia?

simplezz said,

I can download, compile it, and run it, all for free. That's a free OS. Go spread your MS F.U.D elsewhere please.

Wow, you REALLY have no understanding of FOSS or technology ownership.

I can take OS X CDs, mod them to run on most PCs and give them away on the street corner. This is still ILLEGAL, as it is Apple's technology and Apple's software, and does not make it FREE just because I repackage it and give it away.

There are a lot of core technologies in both Linux and Android that are owned by Microsoft. Microsoft has turned their head on a lot of this over the years, and only defended it when it was a commercial company competing with Microsoft that demanded they protect their technology.

If you think Linux for example has no Microsoft technology, go ask Red Hat, why they pay Microsoft licensing fees for every copy of Red Hat Linux they sell...

(There are a lot of free design reference ideas Microsoft gave away from free over the years that they could 'still' be dicks about if that was their intention. You know, little things like portions of the ARM architecture they created, GPU technologies they created that ALL NVidia/AMD video cards uses, and even fun stuff like the gaming shader language used in EVERY game in the last 10 years, that comes from Microsoft and OpenGL's version is a direct port, and CUDA and eve OpenCL from Apple use Microsoft GP-GPU technologies as well. They gave this technology to the industry to make it better, and if they wanted, could crush the industry by yanking it back in and tell companies like Sony with their PS3 to stop sales immediately, tell Apple to stop shipping Macs and iPads with their GPU hardware technology and games and 3D applications that use their shader and other video technologies.

Microsoft could make the world a really dark place... Instead they 'give' a lot of ideas and designs away. Microsoft has given more FREE technology to the industry than all the FOSS projects combined.

I get tired of this level of ignorance.

Edited by thenetavenger, May 24 2012, 11:26pm :

thenetavenger said,

Wow, you REALLY have no understanding of FOSS or technology ownership.

I can take OS X CDs, mod them to run on most PCs and give them away on the street corner. This is still ILLEGAL, as it is Apple's technology and Apple's software, and does not make it FREE just because I repackage it and give it away.


Except that when I download, compile, and run Android, that's exactly what's permitted by the Apache open source licence. What you are doing is breaking copyright and a whole host of other laws. That's a free OS vs a closed one. Windows is closed, WP7 is closed, and the Xbox is closed.

Now tell me again, who doesn't have an understanding of FOSS and copyright licences?

thenetavenger said,

There are a lot of core technologies in both Linux and Android that are owned by Microsoft.

Really? Which exactly? You mean the nebulous and untested hundreds of patents Microsoft claims Linux infringes? That's what's known in the industry as F.U.D.

thenetavenger said,

Microsoft has turned their head on a lot of this over the years, and only defended it when it was a commercial company competing with Microsoft that demanded they protect their technology.

So anybody that competes with Microsoft is a target for patent aggression. Yep that sounds about right.

thenetavenger said,

If you think Linux for example has no Microsoft technology, go ask Red Hat, why they pay Microsoft licensing fees for every copy of Red Hat Linux they sell...

You've said that twice now, source? Show me the money!

thenetavenger said,

Microsoft could make the world a really dark place...

Microsoft is decidedly weak these days. The PC market is stagnant, and Windows is on the decline. They no longer even register in the rapidly growing mobile market any more.

The world is looking rather bright at the moment.

thenetavenger said,

I get tired of this level of ignorance.

There's a latin idiom I like to quote for occasions such as this - De docta ignorantia.

fuzi0719 said,
Now for Google/Moto to get THEIR patents enforced the same way Apple/Microsoft does. F**k FRAND, sue the b**tards.

they cant. FRAND is legally binding, they stand the chance of getting huge fines and or losing the patents in question from what I understand.

fuzi0719 said,
Now for Google/Moto to get THEIR patents enforced the same way Apple/Microsoft does. F**k FRAND, sue the b**tards.

Maybe you haven't been keeping up with current events, but they already are enforcing their patents. Xbox import ban in the US anyone?

fuzi0719 said,
Now for Google/Moto to get THEIR patents enforced the same way Apple/Microsoft does. F**k FRAND, sue the b**tards.

Too right. It's about time Apple/Microsoft got a taste of their own medicine.

simplezz said,

Too right. It's about time Apple/Microsoft got a taste of their own medicine.

Putting Microsoft and Apple in the same group/context is insane. Apple is trying to again change patent/copyright laws and are the ORIGINAL software and technology patent 'creators' through their lawsuits going back to Franklin.

Microsoft has ONLY pursued companies that create a competing product that directly uses Microsoft technologies, and even then, they only ask for a licensing deal, that often helps the company by giving them access to more Microsoft technology.

Look at all the Linux distributions out there, Microsoft has only sought licensing from a couple, like Red Hat because they started competing in the 'support paid' server business and moved away from the 'free distribution' model. NOTICE that Red Hat pays the Microsoft licensing fees, as the patents Microsoft revealed to their lawyers wer4e 'jaw dropping' on what Linux violates.

The same is true of Android, you don't see Microsoft shutting down companies or even asking for licenses from tiny companies that are not competing with Microsoft.

Apple on the other hand sues even when they don't have the patents, and try to bend the definition the wording of a patent, to change patent law.

Apple is literally trying to get the descriptive language of a patent to also apply as theirs. Using the ball analogy: Apple creates patent for Chemical XYZ based round red ball that because of Chemical can bounce really high and stick to objects. The patent is awarded because it is a new 'technology'. However, after getting the patent, as you can see in the Samsung lawsuits, Apple then tries to say that any 'ball' or 'red ball' or 'ball that bounces' is a part of their patent. Which is NOT why they were given a patent, but used to describe their Chemical XYZ ball design, which is where the patent applies is to the Chemical XYZ based ball. Apple thinks they own all balls that don't have the special XYZ chemical and even balls that have existed for 100 years. (This is why they are freaking dangerous and insane with their litigation.)

Comparing Apple to Microsoft is about as 'opposite' as you can get.

Also Google is NO HERO here, as they sat back and let Samsung and other take hits for Android from Apple, and they could have tried to defend them or at least offered financial assistance in the legal fund. Instead they were too intereted in buying Motorola and didn't give a crap if Apple killed HTC, Samsung and all the others.

So now, Google can't even protect Motorola, and it is starting to scare them. As they pushed Motorola to go after Microsoft saying they would pay the bills and help them win. Now Google is noticing Microsoft has more legal grounds on Android that they realized, and the ONLY way they can fight is to go after something that is NOT ANDROID, like the stupid MPEG codec licensing that Microsoft paid, but Motorola later decided they wanted more money, as they can do with the messed up way the MPEG group works.

So in this instance, Google is also manipulating the legal system instead of standing and fighting on the original legal arguments.

Just another legal procedure, the next step is for them to cross-license their stuff, drop all the running suits and bans and walk away happy.

Coolicer said,
Just another legal procedure, the next step is for them to cross-license their stuff, drop all the running suits and bans and walk away happy.

I don't think Microsoft is going to cross license with Motorola now that it's owned by google. I think they would rather money be traded back and forth.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

I don't think Microsoft is going to cross license with Motorola now that it's owned by google. I think they would rather money be traded back and forth.

Why wouldn't they? They've got a pretty major suite running now about the WiFi and H264 stuff. I'm sure that Microsoft would like to have that over with.

Coolicer said,

Why wouldn't they? They've got a pretty major suite running now about the WiFi and H264 stuff. I'm sure that Microsoft would like to have that over with.

not really. those are FRAND patents. Microsoft actually sued Motorola over them. Microsoft knows they have to license them but not at the outrageous cost Motorola is asking of Microsoft.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

not really. those are FRAND patents. Microsoft actually sued Motorola over them. Microsoft knows they have to license them but not at the outrageous cost Motorola is asking of Microsoft.

I know those are FRAND patents, but they could leverage this suite in the negotiations with Motorola to settle those suits since Motorola doesn't seem to want to bend.

Coolicer said,
Just another legal procedure, the next step is for them to cross-license their stuff, drop all the running suits and bans and walk away happy.

Agreed. The only way to end this is for Microsoft to stop suing and threatening Android makers.

simplezz said,

Agreed. The only way to end this is for Microsoft to stop suing and threatening Android makers.

To be honest, that's not what I mean at all. This is all a corporate game, everyone sues and then they settle when both parties have some more bargaining chips. Except for Apple, they sue for different reasons.

simplezz said,

Agreed. The only way to end this is for Microsoft to stop suing and threatening Android makers.

Or for Android makers to stop infringing on MS patents, DERP

If you can't somebody convince with your product you need to suit. WP7 is not so powerful but their lawyers are. Sad that Microsoft is going to be a patent troll.

thekim said,
If you can't somebody convince with your product you need to suit. WP7 is not so powerful but their lawyers are. Sad that Microsoft is going to be a patent troll.

Sad that some people only look one way when crossing the road.

funkydude said,

Sad that some people only look one way when crossing the road.


You think this is an accident? Show me the other way.

thekim said,
If you can't somebody convince with your product you need to suit. WP7 is not so powerful but their lawyers are. Sad that Microsoft is going to be a patent troll.

There are billions of dollars involved here. If you feel like someone even remotely violated your legal rights to something without compensating you and is making money from it, why wouldn't you exercise your rights and let the courts sort it out?

thekim said,
If you can't somebody convince with your product you need to suit. WP7 is not so powerful but their lawyers are. Sad that Microsoft is going to be a patent troll.

your comment is baseless. so do you say when Microsoft sued Tivo to protect Microsoft's customers like ATT (who TiVo sued)? Microsoft stands behind their work and their customers that license their technologies.

patents has become a business. deal with it.
if selling rice corn has become big business then why can't patents?
if selling ideas has become big business then why can't patents?
if selling academic/research findings has become big business then why can't patents?

thekim said,
If you can't somebody convince with your product you need to suit. WP7 is not so powerful but their lawyers are. Sad that Microsoft is going to be a patent troll.


I hope you think that then that Motorola getting XBox potentially banned in Germany few weeks ago and possibly even in USA are patent trolls too. You can apply the same logic to both parties if you are going to apply it at all.

red hook said,

There are billions of dollars involved here. If you feel like someone even remotely violated your legal rights to something without compensating you and is making money from it, why wouldn't you exercise your rights and let the courts sort it out?


You can become the feeling that "to get the right" is not the proper background for a/the lawsuit. They just waiting for the moment where an other one makes a mistake. It's not the point to get the right, the point is to kill the competitive. Google vs. Oracle, Motorola vs. Microsoft, Microsoft vs. Google. Amazing what the companys could make with the money what they waste for this.

eXtermia said,


I hope you think that then that Motorola getting XBox potentially banned in Germany few weeks ago and possibly even in USA are patent trolls too. You can apply the same logic to both parties if you are going to apply it at all.

yes, of course... it is the same bullsh*t.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

your comment is baseless. so do you say when Microsoft sued Tivo to protect Microsoft's customers like ATT (who TiVo sued)? Microsoft stands behind their work and their customers that license their technologies.

patents has become a business. deal with it.
if selling rice corn has become big business then why can't patents?
if selling ideas has become big business then why can't patents?
if selling academic/research findings has become big business then why can't patents?

The answer to all of your question is because it totally and irreversibly limits innovation as well as competition.

Patents are essentially the idea that someone works hard, creates something good, and then says, "F it, I'm done. I've got my gravy train now." If someone wants to come along and further the idea, nope can't do, need to either be licensed out of business or try to skirt the legal system.

Socialism within capitalism is probably the best way to describe it, but I think that is already perfectly described in Corporatism.

Condere said,

The answer to all of your question is because it totally and irreversibly limits innovation as well as competition.

Patents are essentially the idea that someone works hard, creates something good, and then says, "F it, I'm done. I've got my gravy train now." If someone wants to come along and further the idea, nope can't do, need to either be licensed out of business or try to skirt the legal system.

Socialism within capitalism is probably the best way to describe it, but I think that is already perfectly described in Corporatism.

there's a lot of isms in your comment there. you have your tin foil hat on yet?

but after thinking over your answer then your saying all patents are irrelevant because it "totally and irreversibly limits innovation and competition", whether it be for software or hardware, whether it be a tangible product or not. correct?

so then if I, a little guy starting my own plastic business develops a very cheap, stream-lined and fast way of making hard plastic of different sizes and i'm trying to make some good money from. how would I protect myself and business and the jobs I provide other people and the hard work and development cost that I put into creating the hard plastic system from others such as very large companies? they have more capital than I do to make take my system and sell the hard plastic cheaper than I ever could. how would I protect myself and business and workers? if not for patents?

Patents wouldn't protect you from their high payed layers team which could simply dick around with you until you simply go bankrupt due to ongoing court expenses.

Then again I many be wrong, but I don't remember hearing "small company wins patent case against big company", only "big company sues another big company".

As it stands patents are mainly used as a weapon by big company legal teams to harass competitors, they'll fight until one is out of the market or they're both forced to come to an agreement (usually meaning cross licensing). I fail to see how that's good for anyone but lawyers.

ctrl_alt_delete said,

there's a lot of isms in your comment there. you have your tin foil hat on yet?

but after thinking over your answer then your saying all patents are irrelevant because it "totally and irreversibly limits innovation and competition", whether it be for software or hardware, whether it be a tangible product or not. correct?

so then if I, a little guy starting my own plastic business develops a very cheap, stream-lined and fast way of making hard plastic of different sizes and i'm trying to make some good money from. how would I protect myself and business and the jobs I provide other people and the hard work and development cost that I put into creating the hard plastic system from others such as very large companies? they have more capital than I do to make take my system and sell the hard plastic cheaper than I ever could. how would I protect myself and business and workers? if not for patents?

I've gotten to know more people at trade shows and whatnot who've been shut down, or who complained about excessive licensing costs because of inane patent issues and lawyers.

As for asking about my stand on patents (and even copyrights), I'm one of those free market thinking type of people who truly believe that there should be no protections. If someone out performs you, they win. You know... just like how it is in sports.

In regards to your hard plastic manufacturing business. Are you 100% certain that no one has tried what you are trying? Even if you 100% independently invent your method, but someone else has already patented it, you almost certainly will lost the patent case. Is that fair to you?

Additionally, why the need for protection? If your product is cheap to make on your end, and it is a top quality product then you should have nothing to fear as your customers will prefer your product since it is cheap and well made.

If patents will keep someone else from coming along that can make a cheaper product that is better quality than yours, then how is that fair to everyone else? If I am a manufacturer of another item dependent on yours, and I hear of another company that can make even better plastic cheaper than you can, why would I care about you or your employees? At that point, you are hurting me and my company.

There are a bunch of industries that thrive without a lot of patent and copyright protections. If they can do it, I don't understand why others need it. Restaurant, bars and the fashion industry are always big ones to name real easily. It's not like some people in those industries wouldn't love to have them and drive prices even higher after they license out the right to Gin and Tonics, Rum and Cokes, etc.

funkydude said,

Sad that some people only look one way when crossing the road.

Εxcept that Microsoft starts all these lawsuits.

thekim said,
If you can't somebody convince with your product you need to suit. WP7 is not so powerful but their lawyers are. Sad that Microsoft is going to be a patent troll.

Really? Go look up the history of all this crap, and the politics.

If Microsoft didn't have grounds, then companies like Red Hat and other would not have signed licensing deals with Microsoft.

Whether the world likes it or not, there has been a lot of Microsoft technology added to Linux and Android's JVM. When companies start competing against Microsoft with these products, they ask for licensing, as it isn't fair to offer a product in the market again a Microsoft product using Microsoft technologies.

If Microsoft wanted to be cruel, they could move to shut down Linux and Android on a far bigger scale. Instead they only seek licensing when the product are competing.

This also has little to do with WP7, as Microsoft was seeking licensing before Wp7 existed.

Funny how it is ok for Android to use other people's technologies, but if Microsoft were to do this, you and other would have pitchforks going after Microsoft.

Heck even Sun/Oracle has a problem with Android, as the JVM is a rip off of Sun's Java, and it also rips off Microsoft JIT patents as well. So it kind of dips into two pools, with the Sun pool being the volatile one.

thenetavenger said,

If Microsoft didn't have grounds, then companies like Red Hat and other would not have signed licensing deals with Microsoft.

Source? I've neither seen nor heard of any patent licensing deal between Red Hat and Microsoft.

thenetavenger said,

Whether the world likes it or not, there has been a lot of Microsoft technology added to Linux and Android's JVM.

What technology are you talking about? VM's and Java existed long before Microsoft came up with its imitation in the form of dotnet.

thenetavenger said,

When companies start competing against Microsoft with these products, they ask for licensing

Microsoft doesn't ask, it threatens, and if that it doesn't work it sues and bans a competitor's product like it did with Motorola. Microsoft is no better than Apple. In fact Microsoft is worse because it attacks almost every company that deploys GNU/Linux based software.

thenetavenger said,

as it isn't fair to offer a product in the market again a Microsoft product using Microsoft technologies.

The same can be said of Microsoft's Windows and Xbox products using Motorola's video technology without permission.

thenetavenger said,

If Microsoft wanted to be cruel, they could move to shut down Linux and Android on a far bigger scale. Instead they only seek licensing when the product are competing.

They tried that by funding the patent troll SCO, but it failed. Microsoft's patents are weak. Look at the recent Oracle vs Google case. Oracle thought Google owed them six billion for their patents. Now they'll get nothing. Microsoft is scared to test their patents before a jury and have them all found irrelevant or invalid.

thenetavenger said,

This also has little to do with WP7, as Microsoft was seeking licensing before Wp7 existed.

Just before they released WP7 to be exact. The timing wasn't a coincidence. What about the years before? Oh that's right, Android wasn't in such a dominant position, therefore didn't pose the same threat they do today. So you see, for Microsoft it's not about protecting their so called inventions, but destroying and weakening the competition. The same old anti-competitive tactics that served them so well in the past. I guess old habits die hard eh?

thenetavenger said,

Funny how it is ok for Android to use other people's technologies, but if Microsoft were to do this, you and other would have pitchforks going after Microsoft.

Microsoft does it all the time. Infact just recently, the usb iso utility for Windows 7 was found to contain GPL code, which Microsoft "forgot" to mention. Who knows how much FOSS code Windows and other MS products contain. We can't tell because it's closed source.

thenetavenger said,

Heck even Sun/Oracle has a problem with Android

Wrong. As has been illuminated in the Oracle vs Google case, Sun actually applauded Google's Android system. The CEO is quoted. Larry Ellision, because of his egotistical nature, believed he could subjugate Google for Steve Jobs, his mate. It turns out now that this foolhardy action has just cost Oracle millions in legal fees with nothing to show.

thenetavenger said,

as the JVM is a rip off of Sun's Java

Deary me, you really don't have clue what you're talking about do you? The Dalvik VM was originally written by Dan Bornstein and has a completely different architecture which is register based whereas Java VM's, including Sun's proprietary implementation are stack machines. Have you heard of a clean-room implementation?

thenetavenger said,

and it also rips off Microsoft JIT patents as well.

Which patents are you referring to? And if that's the case, why hasn't Microsoft filed suit?

thenetavenger said,

So it kind of dips into two pools, with the Sun pool being the volatile one.

I'm starting to think you just make these things up. You provide no evidence to backup your outlandish claims whatsoever.

Edited by simplezz, May 24 2012, 11:04pm :