Never mind: Microsoft tells German court it no longer seeks injunction on Motorola RAZR

2. No_Nonsense posted on 18 Oct 2012, 08:45 13

Too bad, I can't thumb you up more than once.

8. PhenomFaz posted on 18 Oct 2012, 10:24 6

its a start...finally some people are beginning to 'let go'...of patents and focussing on innovation

6. sheik posted on 18 Oct 2012, 09:10 3

That rule sucks, If i date that hottie in your user photo and pay a compensation for you as a victim, will you let me to go ahead based on your ethical and rational point of view? Patents matters much more than you think... It take years to develop a new functionality for any OEMs and then they patent it... You cant just copy and pay compensations for BS sake....

7. wendygarett posted on 18 Oct 2012, 09:20 1

But it's rude to claim compensation and banned victim's product in the same times...

11. -box- posted on 18 Oct 2012, 11:24 2

It's the responsibility of an OEM to ensure their devices don't infringe, or to setup royalties for them in advance. Pretty much every phone maker on the planet has to have Nokia and Motorola approve their phones since they use their patented innovations. Granted, many of those are now FRAND (which is silly, companies should be compensated for their true innovations, especially groundbreakers like Moto & Nokia), but there are still a few that require royalties. Nokia could survive (albeit not as a hardware maker) on just royalties, and Google bought Moto just for its patents and royalties.

• This comment is posted in response to #7 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #7 Hide

9. Stoli89 posted on 18 Oct 2012, 10:35 2

Depends what the compensation is for and what is a stake. If an innovator is granted a patent, it is for the express purpose of PREVENTING OTHERS from using the same idea in the market. It is, in effect, a protection by the government for the innovator to make money from the market for this novel idea and for a LIMITED period. A head start, so to speak.

Another entity has to compensate for the use of that idea in each specific market where it is patented. Of course, the holder of the patent does not have to grant use (at any price) unless the idea is included in specific licensing regimes (ie.e FRAND).

It seems to me that MS and Apple are playing ethically here and by the rules. Just because these actions could impact potential Android consumers has no bearing on the matter.

10. phitch posted on 18 Oct 2012, 10:55 3

Wrong, the use of patents is not to prevent ideas from the market but to prevent people from using your method of achieving those ideas. That is why software patents are the bane of innovation because the people who preside over these cases often have no idea about software. So they see two ideas that seem to be the same but use very different means to achieve the end result, but since they know nothing of programming languages they ban one because if it looks the same it must be the same!

This is the same problem with everyone who thinks MS and Apple play by the rules, the abuse the jury's lack of knowledge in these cases to often take advantage of something that should never have become patentable in the first place.

12. -box- posted on 18 Oct 2012, 11:36 0

Would you then say that software itself shouldn't be patented if it uses an existing software language/code, and only new language/code should be patentable? For me that would make some sense, because it'd be akin to someone patenting an Excel sheet because they filled it out, rather than someone patenting a new program that does what Excel does without using any of its code, theoretically speaking.

• This comment is posted in response to #10 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #10 Hide

14. tedkord posted on 18 Oct 2012, 12:25 0

Software should not be patentable period. The coding is already protected by copyright.

Something like "swipe to unlock" is an idea. It shouldn't be patentable. The specific code to achieve it is already protected. Someone can't just take that code and insert it into his own program.

It's like the idea of an operating system. With a software patent, no one else would have been able to design one after the first. The idea of a "layer of programming code that interfaces with a computer system and other software", or some such description would have prevented any other OS. That's just silly.

• This comment is posted in response to #12 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #12 Hide

19. shuaibhere posted on 19 Oct 2012, 01:38 0

scared of running ad in web and papers that sorry, we violate on google's search patents....

20. chaoticrazor posted on 19 Oct 2012, 12:47 0

no ones scared of google

so lets get this right, you moan and whine when apple patent everything and sue

then when Microsoft decide to withdraw something other company's should do you claim its because there scared.........so they shouldn't of withdrew then ohh but then you would whine that Microsoft are just evil

and google isnt a special company, all company's are after one thing-money each going after it in a different way