# Microsoft Can't Make a Phone. Prefers to Sue Motorola Instead



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/01/technology/microsoft_motorola/index.htm?hpt=T2

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Microsoft Corp. filed a lawsuit against Motorola on Friday, saying the smartphone maker had infringed on nine patents in its Android-based devices.

The nine patents that Motorola (MOT, Fortune 500) allegedly violated involve essential smartphone functions, including "synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts; scheduling meetings; and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power," Microsoft said.

read the full article via the link


----------



## Marlin Guy (Apr 8, 2009)

:lol:


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

Or alternatively, Motorola can't make a phone without stealing ideas from other folks. Don't jump to conclusions. That's what we have a judicial system for - to rationally and reasonably determine the truth, rather than having things run by mob-think.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Actually, it's not a question of Motorola stealing anything. It appears however Android is communicating with Exchange infringes on MS's Activesync patents.

Which is kind of annoying. If Google thought they could use Activesync but not pay MS any licensing I'm going to be up a creek.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

Interesting timing. :lol:

The same day Samsung, arguably the largest maker of Android phones, announces they are also going to produce a line of Windows 7 phones and drop Symbian (but not Android), Microsoft sues one of Samsung's Android competitors. 

I guess licensing Windows Phone 7 is the price for not being sued by Microsoft? Perhaps Samsung caved and not Motorola?


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> Actually, it's not a question of Motorola stealing anything.


Infringement is stealing.

It _is _a question of Motorola stealing something.


----------



## machavez00 (Nov 2, 2006)

Microsquash suing for patent infringement? Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Last I read, and I could be wrong, but they're going after motorola because of the programs that motorola made for their droid interface with the motoblur stuff. They had license agreements prior but let them expire. I think android is getting wrapped into it beacuse of their approval of the programs to be used. 

The upside to consumers is even if they are infringing and have to pay the licensing costs it will make android that much more popular to business consumers as they can now use the actualy activesync rather than their work around until they come up with something else. 

So far I think RIM is the only company that has come up with a non infringing way to get around activesync but it costs them a lot to do it.


----------



## joshjr (Aug 2, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> Or alternatively, Motorola can't make a phone without stealing ideas from other folks. Don't jump to conclusions. That's what we have a judicial system for - to rationally and reasonably determine the truth, rather than having things run by mob-think.


That being said wouldnt they have to sue every smart phone company out there then? Do you know of any smart phones that dont have calendars and sync capabilities for email? Come on this is just stupid.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

Stand by... this is just the opening of a salvo as Microsoft Legal moves to protect some of their intellectual property rights. The really big one will be Google itself. 

Micropsoft has been in discussions with numerous phone manufacturers for months with regard to patent issues and numerous "cross licensing" deals. HTC and LG have already concluded agreements and others are waiting.

In fact this is Microsoft's "preferred" method of dealing with these issues.


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

joshjr said:


> Come on this is just stupid.


Not even a little. Your (almost surely erroneous) insinuation that there is no other way to do something doesn't nullify the existence of intellectual property. :nono2:


----------



## cerrdor (Sep 16, 2010)

Everyone just needs to sit back and let the corporate lawyers take care of things, this is actually Microsofts' way of getting their money back after losing $200-million-plus Custom XML patent infringement case. Its the way corporations see things, if I can't steal other peoples stuff I won't let you use mine! NEENER NEENER NEENER


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

bicker1 said:


> Infringement is stealing.
> 
> It _is _a question of Motorola stealing something.


If it's Android and Activesync, then it ISN'T Motorola, it's Google.


----------



## Grentz (Jan 10, 2007)

With the wave of Apple lawsuits lately, not really a surprise MS got back in on the action. MS tech is also quite frequently used illegally without license by open source packages, hence a lot of lawsuits in the past and now. This is pretty normal operating procedure before a large product launch for big corporations.

-Gets media attention
-Removes competition (even if just temporarily)
-Protects their property/licenses

Microsoft does not actually seem all that in the wrong here, and I have no idea where you get your title of Microsoft can't make a smartphone...they have and are. If you think because they are suing it means they can't make a phone, take a look at Apple....they are ridiculously sue happy these days.


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

Whoa, interesting timing indeed!


----------



## wingrider01 (Sep 9, 2005)

RasputinAXP said:


> If it's Android and Activesync, then it ISN'T Motorola, it's Google.


at least in the case of activeync it is infringement, microsoft designed and implemented that back in 1996. If it includes Exachange Activesync is adds a proprietary protocol, although Google has licensed it from MS just as apple did


----------



## bicker1 (Oct 21, 2007)

RasputinAXP said:


> If it's Android and Activesync, then it ISN'T Motorola, it's Google.


The point is that it is a question. You have your perspective. Microsoft has theirs. Motorola has theirs. Question.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

RasputinAXP said:


> If it's Android and Activesync, then it ISN'T Motorola, it's Google.


Ya. But if Microsoft sues Google, they can't "strong-arm" individual phone manufacturers to license Windows Phone 7 (or risk being sued themselves). I say this because Android phone makers HTC, LG and Samsung have all committed to also making Windows 7 phones... and they are not being sued.

If it turns out *Windows Phone 7 vs. iPhone-Android-Blackberry* is no more successful than *Zune vs. iPod* was, Microsoft would probably make more money forcing Google to license _ActiveSync_ than they're gonna make on royalties from Windows Phone 7 market share. Just my .02.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

RasputinAXP said:


> If it's Android and Activesync, then it ISN'T Motorola, it's Google.


If it's about the non-stock Android e-mail applications in MotoBlur or NinjaBlur then it is about Motorola, not Google. If it's the native client then this is MS going after Moto instead of Google / Android, much like Apple suing HTC over the patents it feels Android infriges on.


----------



## Steve (Aug 22, 2006)

bobukcat said:


> If it's about the non-stock Android e-mail applications in MotoBlur or NinjaBlur then it is about Motorola, not Google. If it's the native client then this is MS going after Moto instead of Google / Android, much like Apple suing HTC over the patents it feels Android infriges on.


According to ZDNet today:



> _"In particular, we're talking about the Exchange/ActiveSync messaging and calendaring synchronization capabilities within the Android OS."_
> 
> *[more]*


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

I have to wonder if MS would have brought this lawsuit if Moto weren't splitting into two companies as the part that will be Motorola Solutions is a very large reseller of WinMo and CE. It also makes me wonder if Motorola Solutions, if they are still a party to this lawsuit post-separation, will be more inclined than before to consider Android or Linux running on their products because of it.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

Steve said:


> According to ZDNet today:


Steve, that is an excellent article that I finally had time to read all the way through - thanks for sharing as it answered a lot of questions for me specifically this one:



> As it stands today, Google has licensed ActiveSync from Microsoft for use in Android as well as on its GMail servers (which is why Microsoft isn't suing Google directly) but almost every Android OEM (HTC, Samsung, Sony Ericsson and Dell included) have by virtue of legal pressuring from Microsoft licensed ActiveSync for use in their individual Android handsets as well.
> 
> Motorola, conspicuously is the only major hold-out from Microsoft's double-dipping.


----------



## bobukcat (Dec 20, 2005)

MS filed another suit against Moto for charging too much for some of it's IP that MS apparently uses in the XBOX360 and other products and now Moto is countering with a their own patent infringement suit against MS. Doesn't it seem like the judges should be able to make them all sit in the same room together until they can play nice and cross-license everything??

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/10/motorola-slaps-microsoft-with-a-pair-of-patent-infringement-laws/


----------

