Except that we have already seen testimony the Apple had offerred a similar licensing agreement to Samsung. So Apple did "put it up" for them, they just didn't bite.
Apple would not license to Android. The only reason they are doing this is because it helps their case and it also supports the other competitor vs Android. Apple knows it can squish MS at any time, it's Android that is a threat to them.
:facepalm:
Look samsung you asks and pay for patents! I love the smartcover MS made before they bought the patents!
What does the licensing allow Microsoft to do that they could not legally before (if it excludes cloning)?
See Samsung? Is it that hard to actually PAY for the things you take?
Compensation is not just monetary. It would still be interesting to see how much "value" they got out of those patents from Microsoft -- what were the MS patents including in the cross-licensing, etc?
I think this could be very signficant for Apple in the current trials, as it demonstrates that at least one other large tech company recognized that there was value and validity in the patents in question.
Apple can't "squish" MS at any time. Microsoft is a large company with vast resources and a significant patent portfolio. They also have huge cash cows in Office and Windows.
See Samsung? Is it that hard to actually PAY for the things you take?
Even that wouldn't mean anything since Steve was known to change his opinions quite often.
well, they both have a common enemy -> android
my enemys enemy is my friend ...
I'll admit, I have no love for Microsoft and the majority of their products. That said, I have a lot of respect for what they've done in the mobile space. They've shown that you CAN create an alternative to iOS without blatantly ripping off Apple's IP.
This agreement further demonstrates that even Microsoft understands that
A) You license other's IP when you have to, instead of trying to get away with grand theft.
B) If you don't wanna be dependent on that license forever, all you have to do is start thinking outside the "box" of that license...
All I have to say is, either force them to play by the rules or NAIL SAMSUNG to the wall Apple.
The Worm Has Turned, or something like that, possibly involving tables.
well, they both have a common enemy -> android
my enemys enemy is my friend ...
Say what you want about design patents, but I am afraid I find this type of licensing by Microsoft very respectable.
It's the "were being transparent about what were doing here" kind of approach that is key in making the argument that "we feel like we can bring something else valuable to the marketplace". I think this approach is going to be much more well received. Especially since imo, Microsoft is not a hardware design firm.
Bravo.
well, they both have a common enemy -> android
my enemys enemy is my friend ...
Apple knows it can squish MS at any time
This is potentially a disaster for Apple, especially if the terms are not clear enough that they would require a court test. Exactly the same problem happened in the 80s, when bad lawyers at Apple authorized Sculley to sign a "single version" look-and-feel licensing agreement with MS that in the end led to litigation and MS's ultimate victory.
So I was right: Tim Cook MAY, indeed, be the new Sculley - pathetic.
Apple can't "squish" MS at any time. Microsoft is a large company with vast resources and a significant patent portfolio. They also have huge cash cows in Office and Windows.
If Samsung builds a Windows 8 tablet, which they are free to do, presumably they'd be able to incorporate most, if not all the pertinent design elements Apple licensed to MS, unless the license was strictly to MS itself for use in its own hardware. Given that Microsoft has an interest in promoting Windows 8, I highly doubt that. They certainly want and need companies like Acer, ASUS, Lenovo, and even Samsung to make competitive Windows 8 tablets if it is to gain a significant presence in the tablet market.
----------
You don't need to "clone" an interface directly in order to be infringing upon a design patent. You just need to be using one or more of the patented design elements in your own design.
Um, no....they can't. Microsoft is definitely down the past few years, but you'd be pretty stupid to ignore them in the future. They have the people, experience, and most importantly capital to come back and bite you in a big way if you aren't careful. Having said that, I don't think surface is going to be super successful.
This is potentially a disaster for Apple, especially if the terms are not clear enough that they would require a court test. Exactly the same problem happened in the 80s, when bad lawyers at Apple authorized Sculley to sign a "single version" look-and-feel licensing agreement with MS that in the end led to litigation and MS's ultimate victory.
So I was right: Tim Cook MAY, indeed, be the new Sculley - pathetic.
You're exactly right. I also think that by Microsoft sticking to it's "guns" by enabling Do Not Track in IE 10, they are really starting to show consumers that they are doing things right again. They are paying for their licenses and they care about privacy. Those are both very respectable.
The magnetic keyboard smart cover is sweet. Would have loved that on the iPad.