When news broke late last week that Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT) would seek a $15 license from Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC) for every Google Android-based smartphone the handset maker produced, it seemed less like a smart business move and more like desperation.
But added to similar patent enforcement actions against Samsung from Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Oracle Corp. (Nasdaq: ORCL), the action now looks like a clarifying of strategies to take on Google's move into mobile, by way of patent law. (See: Which Company Does Apple Fear the Most?)
Here's the basic scheme: Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle are all making similar claims that Samsung -- and presumably other Android device makers watching -- needs patented technology to make its Google phones work. Samsung is the likely target for this sort of action because its Galaxy phones and tablets look to be the key competition; estimates indicate it has shipped more than 3 million Galaxy line units since just April.
If patents do turn out to be Samsung's -- and really Android's -- Achilles heel, it would be a massive problem. Patent watcher Foss Patents has a copy of the complaint here. Apple's complaint is the second since March; Oracle's, perhaps the more damaging suit, argues that it's owed by Google and its handset partners for use of Java, which is an integral part of the Android system.
So the tablet wars, it now seems, are going to be fought in patent court. And in fact the first shot wasn't at Samsung. Back in 2009, Nokia filed a similar action against Apple, for use of various Nokia technologies across the Apple product line, including the iPhone. The patent experts writing at Foss, who must be enjoying the whole dustup (the company name stands for Free and Open Source Software; picture a graffiti artist tracking the case of a stolen painting), noticed back then that Nokia held five times as many patents as Apple did.
It's a useful question for today, too: Just how much of this technology does Microsoft (which once patented a radio-controlled talking bear) own, compared to what Samsung has? No one's yet got a sense of just how many patents the odd collection of anti-Google interests hold collectively, compared to what Google holds.
But one can easily imagine this going quickly to a negotiation, rather than to court. The $15 demanded by Microsoft doesn't sound like a firm figure; it sounds more like an opening offer, by a company pretty sure already that it has a pretty strong case against Samsung and Google.
If so, then the floodgates, presumably, open. In a world where OEMs are paying licensing fees to a number of the tech world's largest players, Android starts to look less attractive -- particularly if Microsoft succeeds in winning anything close to that $15 payment. Add in similar demands to three or four others, and suddenly the hope of a $20 smartphone, the golden dream of the handset makers from last winter's Mobile World Congress, disappears into a lawyer's pocket.
That's a place from which most ideas, even good ones, don't typically manage to return. At least not anytime soon, and usually not intact.
The ruling from the court or the settlement that emerges will be a big deal for many companies. When you have key players involved like; Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Nokia, Oracle, and Google, serious money and market share is at stake. Every one of these companies has something to win and lose based on the outcome of this battle. This could also mean the end of cheap programs or electronics. It will be interesting to see who comes out on top.
Patenting provides or assures the minimum guarantee, against the key idea or technology. If anybody wants to make use of that technology, they have to pay either the licensing fee or royalty. At the same time, it’s a violation against ones right to create similar innovative ideas or technology. If such a debate happens, it’s very difficult to judge whose part is right. If I have idea and man power, I can create new technologies without conceiving third party ideas. I don’t know how it becomes the violation of similar technology patent.
That is likely the case for companies currently in competition with each other. But Edison's great-great-great granddaughter seems to think there is an opportunity to cash in here. I just wonder how the patents could possibly still be current.
Ariella, The electronics industry moves too fast for anyone to wait for patents to expire. A five years old patent is probably not as important in the market anymore not to mention one that is 20 years old. The technoloby might still be relevant but the application may be quite different and any royalty payments won't be as much as for a much fresher patent. I may be wrong but this is not so much about patents as it is about companies' setting up roadblocks to slow down competitors.
Ariella, The electronics industry moves too fast for anyone to wait for patents to expire. A five years old patent is probably not as important in the market anymore not to mention one that is 20 years old. The technoloby might still be relevant but the application may be quite different and any royalty payments won't be as much as for a much fresher patent. I may be wrong but this is not so much about patents as it is about companies' setting up roadblocks to slow down competitors.
@Ariella, Fascinating. So, the descendant of Edison is suing now because all the smartphone and tablet PC vendors are suing each other. I thought I was the only one who had noticed this. What these companies couldn't achieve in the market place they want to get from the court. You can bet some other companies are examining their patent portfolios to see if they can allege something had been infringed.
This fight will lead to the companies losing lot of money for the lawyers and increasing the prices. Also the management lose lot of time during the process which could have beeen better utilised to invent or design new, better and cheaper products. I think there should be a common place where the manufacturers can go and make sure that their product doesn't have any thing which uses patented technology.
From what I've seen about it, patents do expire. The number of years it is in force varies, but I've seen 17 and 20 years, nothing like the 100 years or so that would be needed to keep Edison's patents in effect unless they were renewed to keep them current. But I suppose a patent lawyer would know more about the subject.
"There is nothing new under the sun". I think that some patents shall be declared obsolete after a certain number of years. Seriously a 19th century patent should be considered public domain, don't you think?
Flooding has affected two large high-tech industrial parks: Bang Pa-in Industrial Park and Navanakorn Industrial Park, where entire assembly lines are under water.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Archived Dialogues
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Euro-Crisis: What It Means for High-Tech Firms Join EBN Editor in Chief Bolaji Ojo and Contributing Editor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday, July 12, at 10:00 a.m. EDT for a Live Chat on high-tech and Europe's economic difficulties.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.
To save this item to your list of favorite EBN content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This