Microsoft's Anti-Android FUD Campaign in Full Swing

[Lechio]

With the release of Windows Phone 7 upon us, the hype machine now goes all the way up to 11. While hype machines are generally relatively harmless and easy to poke a hole through, coordinated FUD campaigns by patent trolls are not. After Apple and Microsoft trolled HTC, and Microsoft now trolling Motorola, the actual FUD campaign against Android is in full swing.

Windows Phone 7 has to succeed. Come hell or high water.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ballmer's position at Microsoft depends on Windows Phone 7's success. While Windows and Office continue to do well, Microsoft's other endeavours haven't been as successful; Windows Phone 7 should be the sign that Microsoft can still innovate and come up with something new that will enter a market, and grab a significant share.

Except, Android is in the way. Windows Phone 7 must appeal to the same OEMs currently selling Android devices, and in order to get them to even consider Microsoft's latest mobile offering, Redmond will have to convince them it's worth paying Microsoft for something they can get for free from Google.

There's two ways you can do this. One, Microsoft could offer such a compelling package with Windows Phone 7 that OEMs will line up to pay license fees to ship Windows Phone 7 devices, market them, and support them, all over the world. This is how competition works, and is the preferred way for consumers such as ourselves, since it would mean we get better products.

If that method fails - or you believe it will fail - you can always resort to what I call the rogue tactics. You can spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the competing platform - in this case, Android - by holding secret negotiations, speaking of patents nobody has ever seen, forbidding companies from ever revealing those supposed patents, and suing any company that flips you the bird (Motorola, you go girl).

Now that you spread the fear into everyone that your competitor is actually not free at all because of the patent deals you mafia'd OEMs into and the lawsuits you started against those that refuse to pay protection money sign such patent deals, you can then send your employees and executives on the warpath, instructing them to enlighten the world about how your competitor is not free at all.

And so we arrive at an interview in The Wall Street Journal with Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO. The interview was held in honour of Windows Phone 7's upcoming launch, so of course Ballmer addressed Android's perceived free-ness by claiming it's not free at all - with the proof being the patent deals his company signed with HTC.

"Android has a patent fee," Ballmer told the WSJ, "It's not like Android's free. You do have to license patents. HTC's signed a license with us and you're going to see license fees clearly for Android as well as for Windows."

And now you have planted the seeds of fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the minds of the people making the decisions at OEMs. You have them where you want them. Google claims Android is free, but here you have that kind of huge company from Redmond claiming this isn't the case... And they have their own mobile offering we could use... And coincidentally, their patent agreement deal is just a little bit more expensive than their Windows Phone 7 OEM deal... Mmm.

As usual in technology media, the real questions weren't asked by The Wall Street Journal (too afraid to lose exclusives). Which patents, Mr Ballmer? What do they cover? Can you give us the patents' numbers? How many are there? Are they software or hardware patents? When do they expire? Why aren't you suing Google? Is it coincidental that Apple, a company you're very friendly with, is pretty much employing the same tactics you are?

Windows Phone 7 has to succeed. Come hell or high water.

Source OSnews ( a credible independent site )

[DanLeto]

Do not want I still have nightmares about my 360 and a phone is something you actually have to rely on.

[jakem1]

Wow that took a long time to get to the point.

Anyway, Ballmer's right, it's not FUD. There are lingering license issues with Android, everyone knows that. There are also outstanding compatibility issues that Google will need to address at some point or another.

[Singh400]

What a awfully written article that was...it literally pained me to read it...

[HawkMan]

ah typical FOSS FUD.

OMG MS is protecting their patents, they can't do that. oh hey look we have a patent we can sue MS for, let's do it... :rolleyes:

[PreKe]

Anyway, Ballmer's right, it's not FUD. There are lingering license issues with Android, everyone knows that. There are also outstanding compatibility issues that Google will need to address at some point or another.

Of course it's FUD. It's part of a coordinated attack on Microsoft's rivals. It's part of Microsoft's strategy to blow things out of proportion and spread FUD about competitors. Ballmer has no credibility whatsoever.

OMG MS is protecting their patents, they can't do that. oh hey look we have a patent we can sue MS for, let's do it... :rolleyes:

Who said they have patents they can sue MS for?

The fact is that Microsoft did the following: They first promised that they would not sue companies that used Windows Phone 7. They then proceeded with suing Motorola because they are not using WP7.

What an amazing business model: Use our product, or we'll sue your ass! Extortion.

Microsoft just can't handle real competition, so they resort to FUD and lawsuits.

Pathetic.

[George P Global Moderator]

Do people still believe that Android is "free"?

Oh and this part made me laugh, "Source OSnews ( a credible independent site )".

[MorganX]

Wow that took a long time to get to the point.

Anyway, Ballmer's right, it's not FUD. There are lingering license issues with Android, everyone knows that. There are also outstanding compatibility issues that Google will need to address at some point or another.

Yeah, when I first got the Droid I was ecstatic. Then I could listen to voicemails from Cisco/Exchange. Then I couldn't install and app not on the market without rooting. Then I couldn't sync with Windows Media Player. Then I had to reset an Exchange p/w and it wouldn't let me until I removed my synced msn account (which now uses exchange push) and then re-added it. Sure there are workarounds, but the gloss quickly faded and I'm back to the iPhone awaiting WP7.

[HawkMan]

No they're suing because their using their technology without licensing it.

it's what everyone does, you protect your own technology.

[MorganX]

It's part of a coordinated attack on Microsoft's rivals. It's part of Microsoft's strategy to blow things out of proportion and spread FUD about competitors. Ballmer has no credibility whatsoever.

That's probably true. But that doesn't mean what he's saying isn't also true. Because you don't like it or don't want to hear it doesn't make it untrue. FUD, yes. Warranted, yes.

No they're suing because their using their technology without licensing it.

it's what everyone does, you protect your own technology.

That is true. They're also doing it now, because it's an opportune time. Why not. No law says you can't seek justice when it best suits you. AS you said, everyone in business does that.

[George P Global Moderator]

Who said they have patents they can sue MS for?

The fact is that Microsoft did the following: They first promised that they would not sue companies that used Windows Phone 7. They then proceeded with suing Motorola because they are not using WP7.

What an amazing business model: Use our product, or we'll sue your ass! Extortion.

Microsoft just can't handle real competition, so they resort to FUD and lawsuits.

Pathetic.

You're lack of facts and glaring bias is what's pathetic here. Motorola, if they are, is not getting suied for not using WP7, you thinking that is the case is laughible. The Motorola case is over MS's ActiveSync APIs which even Google itself licensed and paids to use.

That is true. They're also doing it now, because it's an opportune time. Why not. No law says you can't seek justice when it best suits you. AS you said, everyone in business does that.

We actually don't know how long MS has been in talks with Motorola over this stuff. How many months was it that HTC signed on , probably due to using the same tech in it's own Sense apps etc. Just because the timing comes close to WP7 doesn't mean it was planned to be that way.

[HawkMan]

The real problem with Android isn't that individual OEM's need to license patents from MS, Apple, Nokia, Ericsson, and a whole bunch of other phone tech companies.

it's that Google isn't licensing all this for them. of course that would reveal the actual license cost for android as Google would need to charge that and some administration costs for each handset sold form each OEM. but overall it would be cheaper and more importantly easier for everyone. and it would let the OEM's rest certain that google has their back and there are no hidden fall traps in their products that'll end up biting them. Then they could go on to fix all the other issues with Android. I love my Android phone, but android has some serious flaws that need to be handled.

[giga Veteran]

You're lack of facts and glaring bias is what's pathetic here. Motorola, if they are, is not getting suied for not using WP7, you thinking that is the case is laughible. The Motorola case is over MS's ActiveSync APIs which even Google itself licensed and paids to use.

We actually don't know how long MS has been in talks with Motorola over this stuff. How many months was it that HTC signed on , probably due to using the same tech in it's own Sense apps etc. Just because the timing comes close to WP7 doesn't mean it was planned to be that way.

All nine patents cited in the suit are over ActiveSync misuse? Where are you getting your information? I'm not sure how "notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power" is related to ActiveSync.

It's pretty simple to explain if you look at Ballmer's words. It's about IP and patents: either pay us royalties or get sued.

WSJ: You’re still charging a license fee for the software.

Mr. Ballmer: Sure.

WSJ: Is that difficult in an environment where Android is free?

Mr. Ballmer: Android has a patent fee. It’s not like Android’s free. You do have to license patents. HTC’s signed a license with us and you’re going to see license fees clearly for Android as well as for Windows.

[ScottKin]

Of course it's FUD. It's part of a coordinated attack on Microsoft's rivals. It's part of Microsoft's strategy to blow things out of proportion and spread FUD about competitors. Ballmer has no credibility whatsoever.

Who said they have patents they can sue MS for?

The fact is that Microsoft did the following: They first promised that they would not sue companies that used Windows Phone 7. They then proceeded with suing Motorola because they are not using WP7.

What an amazing business model: Use our product, or we'll sue your ass! Extortion.

Microsoft just can't handle real competition, so they resort to FUD and lawsuits.

Pathetic.

Here come the fanbois, as if on-cue!

What's even more pathetic are people who don't even take the time to RTFA or take their rose-colored glasses off long enough to understand that Microsoft is suing Motorola for PATENT VIOLATIONS concerning technologies developed by Microsoft for synching info from and to PC's with "Smartphones", along with others, not because Motorola isn't using WP7 on some of their phones. Last time I checked, Motorola was still selling some WM6 phones, so your "Extortion" comment is both an epic-fail and an epil-FLAIL.

Here's a wash-rag to help you remove the egg from your face.

--ScottKin

[George P Global Moderator]

It's pretty simple to explain if you look at Ballmer's words. It's about IP and patents: either pay us royalties or get sued.

That would be the case regardless of what OS motorola or whoever used. Where's the problem per se? Is it ok to sue if motorola was using it's own inhouse OS but it's wrong or evil to sue because they're using Android? Everyone should look at how often MS gets sued for patents and other things as well before they jump the gun here.

[giga Veteran]

That would be the case regardless of what OS motorola or whoever used. Where's the problem per se? Is it ok to sue if motorola was using it's own inhouse OS but it's wrong or evil to sue because they're using Android? Everyone should look at how often MS gets sued for patents and other things as well before they jump the gun here.

I'm not arguing ethics or software patents--just clarifying information.

[BajiRav]

Of course it's FUD. It's part of a coordinated attack on Microsoft's rivals. It's part of Microsoft's strategy to blow things out of proportion and spread FUD about competitors. Ballmer has no credibility whatsoever.

Who said they have patents they can sue MS for?

The fact is that Microsoft did the following: They first promised that they would not sue companies that used Windows Phone 7. They then proceeded with suing Motorola because they are not using WP7.

What an amazing business model: Use our product, or we'll sue your ass! Extortion.

Microsoft just can't handle real competition, so they resort to FUD and lawsuits.

Pathetic.

Oh I am sure Larry Ellison is such a good friend of Ballmers' that he started the sue-Android party and joined in on the "co-ordinated attack".

Source OSnews ( a credible independent site )

so you are done FUDing front-page and back to your usual tactics in forums?

OSnews !!

[George P Global Moderator]

I'm not arguing ethics or software patents--just clarifying information.

Ok, no problem. I'm just tossing out the question(s) for the sake of discussion.

[HSoft]

Source OSnews ( a credible independent site )

After reading through that terrible article I'm thinking this is seriously biased against Microsoft, then I get to the source above and just have to laugh. :rofl:

[PreKe]

Do people still believe that Android is "free"?

What do you mean?

[Melfster]

The biggest lawsuit and potential pitfall comes for Android comes from Oracle, not either Microsoft or Apple who both suing hardware OEMs.

[PreKe]

Motorola, if they are, is not getting suied for not using WP7, you thinking that is the case is laughible.

They are, in fact, getting sued for not using WP7, in practice. First Microsoft "use WP7 and be safe, don't use it and be unsafe", and then they sued. Pure extortion.

The Motorola case is over MS's ActiveSync APIs which even Google itself licensed and paids to use.

Really? So you are claiming it's just one single patent? Is that it?

[brentaal]

Source OSnews ( a credible independent site )

[BajiRav]

Really? So you are claiming it's just one single patent? Is that it?

Reading comprehension FAIL

[jakem1]

Of course it's FUD. It's part of a coordinated attack on Microsoft's rivals. It's part of Microsoft's strategy to blow things out of proportion and spread FUD about competitors. Ballmer has no credibility whatsoever.

So you're whole argument is...it's FUD because it's FUD. Well done.

Ballmer may have no credibility but Microsoft are receiving a license fee for every Android phone that HTC sells and they'll soon be receiving a fee from Motorola as well. Seems like they know what they're doing and it seems like it's you who's spreading the FUD :laugh: