# MS Sues BN for Patent Boo-Boo



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

*"The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft's patents..."*



> *Microsoft Sues Barnes & Noble for Patent Infringement*
> *MediaBiz.com*
> By Jason Boog - March 21, 2011
> 
> ...


Source: http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknewser/microsoft-sues-barnes-noble-for-patent-infringement_b7886


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Not exactly a "boo-boo" when they've been notified of their infringement for many months and aren't willing to license the infringing technology.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Choice of words... :shrug:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Has there ever actually been a ruling in Microsoft's favor against Google/Android for infringment? :scratchin

Mike


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Has there ever actually been a ruling in Microsoft's favor against Google/Android for infringment? :scratchin
> 
> Mike


Nope, and like normal the sides are pretty divided on this issue. For one Google DOES have a license from MS for certain portions of Android, starting with version 2.0, for some ActiveSync functionality that was added. Many believe that MS is trying to double-dip by making the device manufacturers pay for an additional license.

MS of course has stated that Android infringes on a multitude of different patents ranging from the mundane to the rather complex. They also have a patent suit in progress against Motorola Mobility and have indicated they will go after others. I expect a cross-licensing agreement to eventually be reached but it's clear that MS prefers to take on the device manufacturers instead of Google and I think the reasons are pretty clear. The manufacturers are probably going to do everything they can to push this back to Google - but Google doesn't really sell the OS so the model is different than normal. It will probably take years for this to come to any conclusion but it should be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

bobukcat said:


> Nope, and like normal the sides are pretty divided on this issue. For one Google DOES have a license from MS for certain portions of Android, starting with version 2.0, for some ActiveSync functionality that was added. Many believe that MS is trying to double-dip by making the device manufacturers pay for an additional license.
> 
> MS of course has stated that Android infringes on a multitude of different patents ranging from the mundane to the rather complex. They also have a patent suit in progress against Motorola Mobility and have indicated they will go after others. I expect a cross-licensing agreement to eventually be reached but it's clear that MS prefers to take on the device manufacturers instead of Google and I think the reasons are pretty clear. The manufacturers are probably going to do everything they can to push this back to Google - but Google doesn't really sell the OS so the model is different than normal. It will probably take years for this to come to any conclusion but it should be interesting to see how it plays out.


There are also arguments about modified versions of Android not being licensed as the original OS.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Shades228 said:


> There are also arguments about modified versions of Android not being licensed as the original OS.


Good point, it will be interesting if "Google Experience" devices (basically stock Android with no UI on top of it) like the original Motorola Droid and Nexus One and S being the most popular) will be treated differently in the legal proceedings than those that have been modified or skinned by the manufacturers.


----------

