Microsoft_Bob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 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. +1 This is undoubtedly another attack on free open source software, for Ballmer has been spouting the same kind of FUD about GNU/Linux for years. Microsoft is the archetypal tyrant of the software industry, whose thirst for $$ can never be sated, no matter what the cost to consumers or the market. 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. Spot on there. Microsoft are unable to complete on a level playing field as exemplified by its IE browser, whose market share continues to dwindle despite shipping with a monopoly desktop OS. MS have had it too good for so many years that they are incapable of actually competing without resorting to underhanded and if I may say illegal tactics. The sad thing is that software patents, which should by all rights be abolished, provide the ammunition. This is nothing more than an extortion racket; if they can't beat them sue them is MS's strategy. Very sad, and I can't believe anybody can defend behaviour like this because it hurts all consumers by perpetuating patent litigation which inevitably prohibits greater competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreKe Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 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". What on earth are you talking about? Microsoft is coordinating its attacks. How hard is it to understand that? understand that Microsoft is suing Motorola for PATENT VIOLATIONS concerning technologies developed by Microsoft for synching info from and to PC's with "Smartphones" They are using Motorola over obvious patents, software patents, and only after threatening that companies would only be safe if they licensed WP7. Last time I checked, Motorola was still selling some WM6 phones Which ones, and you are aware that Microsoft's strategy revolves aroud WP7, right? It was WP7 that was supposed to be protection from lawsuits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Spot on there. Microsoft are unable to complete on a level playing field as exemplified by its IE browser, whose market share continues to dwindle despite shipping with a monopoly desktop OS. MS have had it too good for so many years that they are incapable of actually competing without resorting to underhanded and if I may say illegal tactics. The sad thing is that software patents, which should by all rights be abolished, provide the ammunition. This is nothing more than an extortion racket; if they can't beat them sue them is MS's strategy. Very sad, and I can't believe anybody can defend behaviour like this because it hurts all consumers by perpetuating patent litigation which inevitably prohibits greater competition. I'm sorry, but how would you go about competing with free software that's using your inventions? Windows Phone 7 could be leaps and bounds ahead of Android. It still wouldn't stop OEMs from going "Ooo, free OS." I'm sure OEMs would love to use Linux too if their customers didn't demand Windows. People have to make money. Fact of life. Microsoft doesn't have the same business model as Google (advertising) and can't get away with offering a free OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What on earth are you talking about? Microsoft is coordinating its attacks. How hard is it to understand that? They are using Motorola over obvious patents, software patents, and only after threatening that companies would only be safe if they licensed WP7. Which ones, and you are aware that Microsoft's strategy revolves aroud WP7, right? It was WP7 that was supposed to be protection from lawsuits. do you even know who is suing Google for Android before you jumped on the Hate-MSFT bandwagon? where were you when the other thing blew up a few weeks ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PreKe Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 do you even know who is suing Google for Android before you jumped on the Hate-MSFT bandwagon? where were you when the other thing blew up a few weeks ago? What are you on about? I'm talking about how Microsoft first made threats about WP7 and how you would only be safe from patent suits if you licensed it, and then sued Motorola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted October 5, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 Where does it saying using WP7 keeps you from getting suied for patent violation in other areas? Licensing WP7 means MS protects you, the OEM, from getting sued over something used in WP7. That doesn't mean, at least the way I see it, that you can't get sued by MS for using their IP for some other system you sell not under the license. Are there some official licensing facts out or are you jumping to conclusions? And Android isn't "free" at all, Ask HTC how much money it spends on Sense for Android and any other support costs and things that they have to take care of because there's no one else to. If something doesn't work right in they have to fix it, if there is some bug that screws things up on their phones they have to fix it, not Google. Also do you even know how google gets it's cut in all this? Because they're making money as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microsoft_Bob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 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: Microsoft's patents have never even been tested in court, and they want to keep it that way, lest they might be invalidated. So while these claims are unsubstantiated, Ballmer is going around spreading disinformation to all and sundry. That's what I call the definition of FUD. And don't you think it's a coincidence that MS doesn't sue google? or that they wait to just before w7 is released to launch a blitzkrieg against its real competitor? I wont wait with baited breath because your responses are predictably shill-like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What do you mean? He means that Android is not free. By the time OEMs have paid their license fee to MS, spent money developing a usable GUI, added all the missing but necessary applications that Google should have included, put aside a little money for the inevitable lawsuits that they will face with no support from Google and so on Android is starting to look a little expensive compared to competitors like WP7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted October 5, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 Microsoft's patents have never even been tested in court, and they want to keep it that way, lest they might be invalidated. So while these claims are unsubstantiated, Ballmer is going around spreading disinformation to all and sundry. That's what I call the definition of FUD. And don't you think it's a coincidence that MS doesn't sue google? or that they wait to just before w7 is released to launch a blitzkrieg against its real competitor? I wont wait with baited breath because your responses are predictably shill-like. It's been said to death already, so read it this time, GOOGLE ALREADY LICENSES MS IP FOR IT'S APPS!!!!!!! That's why they don't get sued. Did you get it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakem1 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Microsoft's patents have never even been tested in court, and they want to keep it that way, lest they might be invalidated. So while these claims are unsubstantiated, Ballmer is going around spreading disinformation to all and sundry. That's what I call the definition of FUD. And don't you think it's a coincidence that MS doesn't sue google? or that they wait to just before w7 is released to launch a blitzkrieg against its real competitor? I wont wait with baited breath because your responses are predictably shill-like. GP007 dealt with each of your arguments and I agree with him. The license fee and the compatibility issues aren't FUD, they're a reality. All Ballmer is doing is stating the obvious. You might not like it but it's true. Sorry that you think my response is shill-like but you seem like the one defending the indefensible ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microsoft_Bob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 And Android isn't "free" at all The stock distribution is free. No license fees unlike windows. Ask HTC how much money it spends on Sense for Android HTC also adds content atop of windows mobile. So that's the license fee for windows + extra content. So again it renders your point moot. and any other support costs and things that they have to take care of because there's no one else to. They still have support costs associated with windows mobile. Is this the best you can do? Your arguments are all paper thin. If something doesn't work right in they have to fix it, if there is some bug that screws things up on their phones they have to fix it, not Google. And the same exact thing can't happen to windows phones? Next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mdtaUK Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I disagree with the idea of these blanket patents, but I am a fan of Windows Phone 7, so I will try to make a response which is fair. If you agree with patents, you can not be surprised that one company will sue another. What makes this case different, is that Microsoft are not only warning people they plan to take action to protect their patents, they are also offering a way for companies to protect themselves against it. This can be described in both a positive and negative way. Microsoft could be described as effectively holding the company to ransom, but if their patents are strong enough, they are legally within their rights to make patent protection deals. On the other hand, they are allowing companies to use these patents under a licensing agreement, which allows them to continue to ship their products and saves them from having to fight it out in court. I personally think software patents should not be allowed unless it is truly something unique and incredibly specific, and then they should be encouraged to license the use of these to others if it is something that becomes ubiquitous, like touching a button on a flat screen, etc. But as long as there are patents, Microsoft has a legal responsibility to protect and take action against. I wonder if Microsoft would offer a legal agreement, that is not reliant on uptake of WP7, if indeed the report is correct in that this is the only way Microsoft is offering a legal way to continue using the patents. One final point, Microsoft offers legal protection to its partners and licensees, why doesn't Google offer this to those choosing to distribute Android or Chromium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The stock distribution is free. No license fees unlike windows. No license fees to Google no. But that's because google is lazy and wants to try to maintain the image that android is free. instead of doing what MS does, taking care of patents themselves for the customer(oem) and protecting them. instead each OEM has to deal with licensing all the technologies used in android. so no Stock is not free, every OEM needs to pay a pile of patent fees to MS, Apple, Nokia Ericsson and a few others, of those the biggest pile is probably Nokia and Ericssonin fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microsoft_Bob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Anyway, Ballmer's right, it's not FUD. Using unsubstantiated claims to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt is the definition of FUD, and that's precisely what Ballmer and microsoft are doing. Remember those training slides being handed out that attacked Linux on netbooks? Yet another coordinated FUD attack from MS. None of their claims have ever been tested in court, and thus are vapourpatents. There are lingering license issues with Android There are no license issues with Android. There are only FUD claims by microsoft. At least oracle goes to google with their suit instead of going after the little guys who can't defend themselves. There are also outstanding compatibility issues that Google will need to address at some point or another. What compatibility issues?? Next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George P Global Moderator Posted October 5, 2010 Global Moderator Share Posted October 5, 2010 The stock distribution is free. No license fees unlike windows. HTC also adds content atop of windows mobile. So that's the license fee for windows + extra content. So again it renders your point moot. They still have support costs associated with windows mobile. Is this the best you can do? Your arguments are all paper thin. And the same exact thing can't happen to windows phones? Next... You pay to use Google apps don't you? You also have support costs and any IP issues, ask HTC how free stock Android is right now. My point isn't moot at all, my point was that Android isn't free, you're proving my point for me perfectly, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 The stock distribution is free. No license fees unlike windows. Then why did Oracle sue Google? and did you miss GP007's response on purpose? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amon91 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What we need is patent reform so companies won't be fighting over who came up with finger scrolling first (just an example) and make consumers pay the price in the end. The best should win, not the one who has the most patents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 There are no license issues with Android. There are only FUD claims by microsoft. At least oracle goes to google with their suit instead of going after the little guys who can't defend themselves. Since when is Motorola a "little guy"? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealexweb Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 More evidence that if Windows Phone does somehow secede it won't be through it's all merit, it'll be through Microsoft trash talking the competition and depending on piles of advertising money to drive sales. Also I haven't seen Google advertising Windows Phone's flaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) (snipped) err..what? It's not crap by any standards. It's a good phone OS and as good as any other. Edited October 8, 2010 by rm20010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microsoft_Bob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 No license fees to Google no. But that's because google is lazy and wants to try to maintain the image that android is free. instead of doing what MS does, taking care of patents themselves for the customer(oem) and protecting them. There are no license fees period. Why do you think microsoft isn't going after google? They make the OS after all. That's because google has the muscle to defend itself against them, and thus MS risks invalidating their vapourpatents. instead each OEM has to deal with licensing all the technologies used in android. so no Stock is not free You still don't understand do you? There is no cost to Android. I, you, or any company can go and download it and ship it on a product without paying a penny for the OS! You get the point. Microsoft is spreading FUD to try and convince the public and OEM's that it isn't free in order that it's not out-competed. You see, free trumps a windows license, so it's quite obvious why they are trying to create the impression that it isn't free. every OEM needs to pay a pile of patent fees to MS Motorola isn't. And once one doesn't pay the MS tax, they'll all give microsoft the two finger solute, and then say bye bye to wp7, because it can't compete against free :D Apple, Nokia Ericsson and a few others, of those the biggest pile is probably Nokia and Ericssonin fact. Nokia and motorola have huge patent portfolios. Good luck trying to extort the MS tax out of them, xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BajiRav Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 There are no license fees period. Why do you think microsoft isn't going after google? They make the OS after all. That's because google has the muscle to defend itself against them, and thus MS risks invalidating their vapourpatents. So you mean Google used all its bulk of the muscle to license EAS from Microsoft? You know some of the same patents that MSF sued motorola for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thealexweb Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) (snipped) Would you care to explain to us why Android is on the vast majority of the good smartphones atm? Edited October 8, 2010 by rm20010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Microsoft_Bob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 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". Oracle is suing Google. At least they have the guts to try and prove their patents are real. MS doesn't want their patents tested in court, nor do they want another multi-OEM phone OS competing against them, hence, attacking the OEM's, not google. so you are done FUDing front-page and back to your usual tactics in forums? So are you done shilling for microsoft? OSnews !! Yes, it's a website. We all know your only source of information is microsoft dot com. Next... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSoft Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What compatibility issues?? Next... Don't you read Neowin? There are compatibility issues with Skype on Android. Doesn't work on Galaxy android phones. Reading through your posts brings a smile to my face. You spread more FUD than Microsoft does :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts