Yep. If you're on the grid the only real privacy you've got is in your bathroom behind a locked door.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Targets Motorola in Patent Lawsuit Over Android
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. If you're on the grid the only real privacy you've got is in your bathroom behind a locked door.
Balmer to the rescue..HA!!!
Balmer and his group of marketing weenies CANNOT and WILL NOT make a dent. They will, by the nature of being Microsoft, screw this up too.
Let's look at their track record. Yup, over the last 20-odd years, Microsoft has garnered a HUGE chunk of the personal computing real estate by the nature of the market and basic consumer stupidity. That was the magic of Bill Gates..he figured out that by dangling a few shiny trinkets in front of the generally moronic public he would sell "Windows" with all of it's warts - basically forever.
THEN something drastic happened. Netscape started it when they tried to take a large chunk out of Microsoft's ass and almost succeeded... but I'll guarantee you that it got their attention. Then others, both on the hardware front but aggressively on the software with a flood of offerings hitting the market, the technology consumer getting a WHOLE lot smarter about what and how technology could be used, and as of today, they have BYPASSED Microsoft both in skill, market savvy and the ability to maneuver at a vastly quicker pace than the lumbering giant.. Balmer and his gang of weenies can't keep up. Neither can AT&T..
So let's see what happens over the next 3-6 months, with the holiday season, end-of-year strangeness of deals being done to clear product out of pipelines to tidy up the 2010 books and then a rash of new stuff coming down the pipe EARLY next year.. I'd be willing to bet ($1 dollar) that Balmer and his weenies are gone from this market as a player in either phones or tablets by the middle of 2011... They just can't do it..it's the nature of being Microsoft.
Balmer and his group of marketing weenies CANNOT and WILL NOT make a dent. They will, by the nature of being Microsoft, screw this up too.
Let's look at their track record. Yup, over the last 20-odd years, Microsoft has garnered a HUGE chunk of the personal computing real estate by the nature of the market and basic consumer stupidity. That was the magic of Bill Gates..he figured out that by dangling a few shiny trinkets in front of the generally moronic public he would sell "Windows" with all of it's warts - basically forever.
THEN something drastic happened. Netscape started it when they tried to take a large chunk out of Microsoft's ass and almost succeeded... but I'll guarantee you that it got their attention. Then others, both on the hardware front but aggressively on the software with a flood of offerings hitting the market, the technology consumer getting a WHOLE lot smarter about what and how technology could be used, and as of today, they have BYPASSED Microsoft both in skill, market savvy and the ability to maneuver at a vastly quicker pace than the lumbering giant.. Balmer and his gang of weenies can't keep up. Neither can AT&T..
So let's see what happens over the next 3-6 months, with the holiday season, end-of-year strangeness of deals being done to clear product out of pipelines to tidy up the 2010 books and then a rash of new stuff coming down the pipe EARLY next year.. I'd be willing to bet ($1 dollar) that Balmer and his weenies are gone from this market as a player in either phones or tablets by the middle of 2011... They just can't do it..it's the nature of being Microsoft.
Motorola can't go toe to toe in a battle of software patents with Microsoft.... Apple can. That's why.
This isn't about who ripped off who, it's about who ripped of who more.
Agreed, but they didn't steal anything from Microsoft, but they stole from Apple. The Android is a total knockoff. But really, how do you make a smartphone and NOT steal the app store? It's kinda a given.
Hehe, remember when MS said that the iPhone 4 was Apple's Vista? "And I'm okay with it."
Well Apple just completely flipped MS off while pwning them in the face by A. Not losing consumer interest
B. Preventing a further news campaign against Apple
C. Giving free cases to prevent a Toyota-like disaster
MS just got pwned.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. I haven't read all the details of MS's complaint, but from what I've seen, a growing number of Android phones are able to work with an Exchange server which is proprietary and owned by MS. The iPhone can work with Exchange out of the box because Apple licensed Exchange ActiveSync from MS, but I'm wondering how many of these handset makers are actually bothering to license it from MS or if it's being done with some reverse-engineering.
I'm no fan of Windows or Microsoft, but your re-telling of history is appalling. MS did what they did on the desktop for one reason only and it had nothing to do with Apple or the quality of Windows. It was called DOS. Windows bridged the gap between the vast resources available for the DOS-based PC and a Mac-like PC user experience which allowed a load of legacy PC hardware and software to continue to live on in this new GUI/mouse-based computing world. Apple never gained a significant foothold because it was the odd man out, compatible with almost none of the existing PC hardware and absolutely none of the software.
It had nothing to do with consumer stupidity or shiny trinkets. That's an amazingly arrogant and condescending reading of the history of desktop computing.
Huh? I don't even understand what you're trying to say. Netscape was not and never was going to be a threat to Microsoft. MS went after Netscape because they realized if Netscape controlled the default browser on the PC, then they would have control over the user interface for the Web. But it had nothing AT ALL to do with MS being afraid of Netscape taking them on. To believe that, you would have to believe that the circa-1995 MS had the amazing foresight to realize a day would come when web-based apps could rival the desktop computing experience. You can't simultaneously say that AND that they were idiots. It's one or the other.
MS has had a lot of duds in the last few years, but when they do score, they score big. I don't care about their success either way, but I wouldn't necessarily bet against them.
HTC, SE etc pay the licence fee (as do Apple), Moto used to when they made Win6.5 phones but stopped as, hey, we got this "free" Android OS.
The reason M$ have gone after Moto is the same as why Apple have hit HTC - suing Google would be pointless as they have no income from Android that could be seen as damaging to the patent holders. It will hit them indirectly as Google have said they will support manufacturers using Android.
Until collective society stops demanding "the hot gos", surveillance media will be here to stay indefinitely.
Actually I wouldn't care.
A, That means I would have a garden.
B, Someone would be noticing and appreciating my hard work.
Also the Google van drives on the street, not on your garden. Its no more invasive than a community member walking down the footpath.
High chances are you volunteer to participate in surveillance media.
Or you know, buy some !@#$ing curtains.
What the patents are actually about
First, I miss having our resident patent authority Cmaier free from stifling contracts, so he could comment as well
I've been wondering exactly what all the supposed "ActiveSync" fuss was about, and finally found some time to read the patents in question.
Holy smokes. Talk about old but basic patents... ones that describe what they do in so few words, they cover a lot.
Wow. Just wow. They all look basic and major. Every other patent suit we've seen reported here for the past few years seems like kid's stuff in comparison, since they usually were about detailed methods that could be gotten around. Methinks Microsoft wants to force a cross-license agreement with HP, instead of money.
First, I miss having our resident patent authority Cmaier free from stifling contracts, so he could comment as well
I've been wondering exactly what all the supposed "ActiveSync" fuss was about, and finally found some time to read the patents in question.
Holy smokes. Talk about old but basic patents... ones that describe what they do in so few words, they cover a lot.
- Two are about the filename system used on many storage cards.
- One is about clearing Flash memory when more is dirty than clean.
- One is about using software APIs to talk to radio hardware. (!!)
- One is about popup context menus. (!!)
- Two are about synchronizing calendars/etc between computers. (!!)
- One is about apps registering for notifications. (!!)
Wow. Just wow. They all look basic and major. Every other patent suit we've seen reported here for the past few years seems like kid's stuff in comparison, since they usually were about detailed methods that could be gotten around. Methinks Microsoft wants to force a cross-license agreement with HP, instead of money.
I would have thought that Palm and RIM would have prior art on most of those patents, but I could be wrong...
Did you mean to say, "does NOT affect Apple" ?
Many people assume that Microsoft and Apple have had a broad reciprocal patent license agreement since the end of their big GUI court fight back in the late '90s.
Why would that stop Microsoft from suing Apple over violations? Market Cap is just a value placed on the company via investors, nothing else.
Because I'd say that Microsoft and Apple already have a patent sharing agreement - why do you assume that such an arrangement would be impossible? Microsoft had a similar arrangement with Sun Microsystems for example so it wouldn't be out of the question for there to be an arrangement with Microsoft.
Microsoft is the same company that patented the "Page Up" and "Page Down" buttons in 2005, 20 years after they were invented by someone else!!
http://www.zdnet.com/news/microsoft-patents-page-up-and-page-down/218626
That is definately patent trolling, and this seems like it might be as well.
http://www.zdnet.com/news/microsoft-patents-page-up-and-page-down/218626
That is definately patent trolling, and this seems like it might be as well.
Umm, how about reading the patent application instead of just reading the article form ZDNet:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...66.PN.&OS=PN/7,415<br /> ,666&RS=PN/7,415,666
You'll find that it is a lot more than just 'page up' and 'page down' button - it is a specific way of handling scrolling through a document - something that you over looked.
No, the user claimed that MS wouldn't sue Apple as Apple has a larger market cap. I would like to know why they think the market cap would have anything to do with getting sued