7 ms·

Google and Microsoft make patent peace

89 points by tanglesome 11y ago

proksoup 11y ago
"What we do know is that Microsoft makes approximately $3.4-billion a year from its Android patent licening deals. " [sic] I guess this might be good news for Google? From my perspective, patents are a toxic drain on morale/intelligence/innovation that we have no hope of curtailing in my lifetime.
- bsimpson 11y ago
  Seriously. It sounds a lot like a "we were here first" shakedown.
  - rhino369 11y ago
    That's sorta the purpose of patents. Incumbent companies create a ton of valuable technology that new competitors would otherwise get access to only because the incumbents invested in them. You can disagree with rewarding it, but it's not totally insane.
    - jeswin 11y ago
      That an idea can have ownership is totally insane. The only reason it doesn't sound insane is because we've been told over and over that it's a good thing. - People will invent no matter what. Money is just one type of reward. - If you don't want competitors copying immediately, don't announce or demo it before hand and keep it secret until you have all marketing in place. Or limit distribution and offer it in controlled, supervised environments. The solution can't be "this idea is mine". Nobody must own ideas.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        That really misses the point of how R&D works in most fields. LTE wasn't invented by people tinkering in their basement. It took rooms full of PhDs and those cost money. At the same time, it's not technology where having a first-mover marketing advantage matters much. It may take six months for someone to reverse-engineer your technology, but much longer than that to recoup your initial R&D. There is a reason companies like Qualcomm and most Internet companies are on opposite sides of the patent debate, and its not because Qualcomm is evil and Twitter isn't. It's because what it takes to make their respective products, and what it takes to protect their markets from copycats is fundamentally different.
        jeswin 11y ago
        LTE could very well be invented by international collaboration involving academia, industry and individuals. Why should industry get into it? To build expertise. Need to shift from companies seeing patents as assets to expertise/people as assets. That will also create better work environments.
        throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Not all collaboration is equal, or even comparable. If your part of the collaboration is sinking huge amount of resources into inventing the technology, and somebody else's is turning it into marketable products, shouldn't both enjoy the rewards? There are straightforward mechanisms for the latter party. What mechanism would you propose for adequate compensation to the former?
      - digi_owl 11y ago
        Well patents are not really an ownership. It is a time limited exclusive use of what the patent covers, in exchange for writing it down. This so that once the patent runs out, the wider society benefits. Mind you, patents came about when the steam engine was a new thing. Also, that they cover software is a very recent thing. Initially they covered mechanical systems (pistons, rods, cogs etc etc) set up to specific tasks, and chemicals (put X parts of Y into Z under boil). What seemed to happen was that at some point software got involved as controlling these earlier items in a more precise manner than humans or mechanics alone could (monitor temperature, put stuff into other stuff when it hits the exact one, extract everything a precise number of seconds later etc). This was then declared, by court, to be a distinct patent from the same process done via purely manual or mechanical means. A ruling that later lawyers built on to basically get de-facto software patents.
    - tracker1 11y ago
      The problem is that in certain segments, most specifically in terms of software development... the "valuable technology" can generally be implemented by anyone skilled in the crafy, and generally speaking doesn't have a lot of outlay in terms of research/development. That's not to say there aren't segments of software development that should qualify, but imho if allowed should really be more like 5 years, not 20 for software patents. And most software patents should simply have been denied outright.
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Sure, most things in software can be implemented by anyone skilled in the craft, but how many can invent it? And furthermore, when speaking of "skilled in the art", let's keep in mind the perennial HN threads about hiring and how 99% of developers can't do FizzBuzz.
        tracker1 11y ago
        I'm pretty sure a significant portion of software developers working a decade ago could "invent" one click ordering, podcasts, or double-tap actions.
    - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
      It's a tricky subject. The argument from the patent side is that if these companies could not patent their technologies / products, they would not be willing to invest nearly as much in development and this would generally hurt human progress. On the other-hand if you look at big companies like Apple, Facebook the amounts the are investing in genuine human progress is truly paltry compared to their net-worth, and what they are patenting is often ridiculous, generic and clearly not in any way conducive to human progress.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  It would be helpful to augment your perspective with multiple studies about patents based on empirical data. The situation week not appear so gloomy then, though it's certainly very complex.
- doubt_me 11y ago
  I have always had this feeling that patent wars are only around to make the lawyers more money. Imagine how many firms would lose millions if the major tech companies worked together EDIT: (nothing against lawyers in general since they are obviously just doing their jobs)
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    Not a big fan of lawyers (personally seen people screwed by them twice) but there's this weird meme that lawyers can make lawsuits happen as they please. The cases where this can happen are very rare as far as I can see, yet the meme persists.
    - doubt_me 11y ago
      Well I am not at all knowledgeable about the different types of lawyers out there but in general the problem doesn't even begin to start with them. Its all the USPTOs fault for even allowing software (zeros and ones) to be patented in the first place (There are probably very legitimate reasons for this that I don't know about). I don't even know how many resources and time are wasted in courts but I imagine it would be pretty shocking. I haven't heard anything about patent trolls for a while but their entire existence is based on bullshit lawyers and wasting the courts resources. (kinda getting off topic I guess I am done here)
      - icebraining 11y ago
        It's not up to the USPTO to decide what is patentable. The courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the legal validity of software patents, so the Patent Office would probably get sued itself if it discriminated against software inventions.
        WildUtah 11y ago
        The USPTO isn't required to follow court rulings. The MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) isn't even updated to reflect what the courts say unless the PTO likes it. If you don't like what PTO says, you can always just go to your local federal courthouse to sue for your patent. And the PTO gets sued all the time. The courts are split on the idea of software patenting because the Supreme Court doesn't understand what software is. Nobody alive can reconcile Benson, Flook, Diehr, Bilski, and Alice. There were four Supreme votes in 2010's Bilski that pure software logic was unpatentable but software that changed the hardware to make it work better was patentable and the example of eligibility was linear programming and compression. Only Scalia was smart enough to see the problem there and even he can't articulate why. The CAFC -- the patent appeals court -- is relentless in overturning Supreme Court precedents against software patents. Known for being contemptuous of the law and harboring a deeply corrupt majority, the CAFC sees software patents as a gravy train for the patent bar and a permanent tax on a major industry for the benefit of the judges and their friends. Their opinions on the most awful abusive patents reflect a pirate's mentality deliberately ignoring cheating to reach the most harmful conclusions.
- tdylan 11y ago
  Patents seem to have a net negative effect, blatantly anti-competitive.
  - jupiter2 11y ago
    This is another issue that irks me to no end. Companies like Microsoft and Apple reaped the benefits, early on, of little to no software patent protection laws. They copied and outright pilfered everything out there - and it was ok... Those early years saw tremendous competition. It's hard to explain how exciting technology was back then - so many options. I remember learning about and trying to decide between DOS, Amiga, Commodore, Apple IIs/Mac, Atari. These were the OSes/PCs I focused on (not including Unix). Yet, this was nothing compared to the (healthy) competition among app developers. Very innovative times. Nowadays, if you have even a smidgeon of success - you're either bought out by those who successfully gamed the system or sued into submission.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > Companies like Microsoft and Apple reaped the benefits, early on, of little to no software patent protection laws. They copied and outright pilfered everything out there - and it was ok Law suits over look and feel have been happening since the 1980s, well before MS or Apple got big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderbund_Software_Inc._v._Unison_World,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderbund_Software_Inc._v._Un.... Lotus started look and feel lawsuits in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_feel.22_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_fee... Apple tried to sue MS over look and feel in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros.... They've always aggressively used law.
mtgx 11y ago
> Earlier this week, Microsoft re-signed an Android patent-protection pact with I-O Data for an undisclosed amount. You don't say? A patent protection pact. So they don't even try to hide the fact that it was a mafia-style protection racket all along now? "Such a nice business you got there. You wouldn't want it to be dragged in Court and lose millions or hundreds of millions of dollars? Why not just pay us this tiny $5 fee per phone, forever, instead, for an OS we never participated in creating?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket
throwawaykf05 11y ago
TFA (perhaps unsurprisingly) does not mention this particular Microsoft-Google case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-upholds-microsofts-legal-win-over-motorola/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-uph... Of all the patent lawsuits that happened in all the smartphone wars that nobody won, this was the only case where a company was actually sanctioned for, essentially, abusing patents. And this happened on Google's watch. For all the rhetoric Google spewed about how their competitors were abusing patents, ironic that they were the one company that was actually found to be a bad actor. I always thought Google for too much of a free pass on that one. Interestingly the Ars article I linked does not mention Google at all. Guess it's not so surprising they got a free pass.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's acquisition of Moto. It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue). Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google
  - chc 11y ago
    > the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Google I think you mean Motorola and Microsoft.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.
    - nemothekid 11y ago
      Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was Microsoft who started the patent litigation against Motorola, and it was Motorola who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as the scope of the article goes).
ewzimm 11y ago
Definitely a move in the right direction. Software companies have operated with a war mentality for too long, despite their common interests. They trade employees pretty often too, exposed no-poaching agreements aside. Competition isn't going away any time soon, but I think everyone appreciates more interoperability and cooperation. Will the Internet communities following them be able to follow this example?
- drdaeman 11y ago
  I find it the opposite. In my perception, the patent hatched buried was actually a good thing for everyone else, because the patents were fought against (with the likely outcome to be revoked as non-patentable bullshit that software patents are). With that peace treaty, nothing is against those patents and they are actually strengthened, which is not something to celebrate. Of course, would the announcement contain something about dropping the patents (and not the lawsuits), my opinion would be surely different. But all I've read is that two giants won't touch each other and it's not something I do care about.
  - ewzimm 11y ago
    I see your point. But there will be a lot of opportunities for software patents to be tested in court. When people look at history and see companies agreeing not to sue each other, what direction will that push the argument? I hope a good one.
znemz 11y ago
So does this mean the next nexus will get an micro-sd card slot? Cause this is has kept me away from one due to this meaningless feud.
- doubt_me 11y ago
  They completely avoided this question in their reddit AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3mzrl9/hi_im_hiroshi_lockheimer_here_at_google_with_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3mzrl9/hi_im_hiroshi_...
ycitera 11y ago
They make patent peace with themselves but not with the small guys?
shmerl 11y ago
So will MS stop demanding money from various Android manufacturers now? In general I hope they'll change their attitude from patent aggression to patent disarmament. We need more changes like this.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - shmerl 11y ago
    It can be also related to a set of patents published by China earlier which MS used to demand Android patent protection money. It could undermine their patent aggression efforts.
michaelwww 11y ago
I wonder if Apple enabling ad blocking in iPhones and iPads had something to do with this. Many see it as a direct shot at rival Google, which makes most of it's money from advertising. Days later and suddenly Microsoft and Google are besties. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
nobrains 11y ago
Do you think this handshake was partly due to the CEOs of both Microsoft (Satya Nadella) and Google (Sundar Pichai) having the same roots (India)?
utuxia 11y ago
Google is slowly becoming the next Microsoft.
utuxia 11y ago
Google is slowly becoming the next Microsoft.
jupiter2 11y ago
"Google and Microsoft agreed to work together against patent trolls in the European Union." I hope the irony of this isn't lost on anyone - especially as it relates to Microsoft.

89 points by tanglesome 11y ago

"What we do know is that Microsoft makes approximately $3.4-billion a year from its Android patent licening deals. " [sic] I guess this might be good news for Google? From my perspective, patents are a toxic drain on morale/intelligence/innovation that we have no hope of curtailing in my lifetime.

bsimpson 11y ago
Seriously. It sounds a lot like a "we were here first" shakedown.
- rhino369 11y ago
  That's sorta the purpose of patents. Incumbent companies create a ton of valuable technology that new competitors would otherwise get access to only because the incumbents invested in them. You can disagree with rewarding it, but it's not totally insane.
  - jeswin 11y ago
    That an idea can have ownership is totally insane. The only reason it doesn't sound insane is because we've been told over and over that it's a good thing. - People will invent no matter what. Money is just one type of reward. - If you don't want competitors copying immediately, don't announce or demo it before hand and keep it secret until you have all marketing in place. Or limit distribution and offer it in controlled, supervised environments. The solution can't be "this idea is mine". Nobody must own ideas.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      That really misses the point of how R&D works in most fields. LTE wasn't invented by people tinkering in their basement. It took rooms full of PhDs and those cost money. At the same time, it's not technology where having a first-mover marketing advantage matters much. It may take six months for someone to reverse-engineer your technology, but much longer than that to recoup your initial R&D. There is a reason companies like Qualcomm and most Internet companies are on opposite sides of the patent debate, and its not because Qualcomm is evil and Twitter isn't. It's because what it takes to make their respective products, and what it takes to protect their markets from copycats is fundamentally different.
      - jeswin 11y ago
        LTE could very well be invented by international collaboration involving academia, industry and individuals. Why should industry get into it? To build expertise. Need to shift from companies seeing patents as assets to expertise/people as assets. That will also create better work environments.
        throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Not all collaboration is equal, or even comparable. If your part of the collaboration is sinking huge amount of resources into inventing the technology, and somebody else's is turning it into marketable products, shouldn't both enjoy the rewards? There are straightforward mechanisms for the latter party. What mechanism would you propose for adequate compensation to the former?
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      Well patents are not really an ownership. It is a time limited exclusive use of what the patent covers, in exchange for writing it down. This so that once the patent runs out, the wider society benefits. Mind you, patents came about when the steam engine was a new thing. Also, that they cover software is a very recent thing. Initially they covered mechanical systems (pistons, rods, cogs etc etc) set up to specific tasks, and chemicals (put X parts of Y into Z under boil). What seemed to happen was that at some point software got involved as controlling these earlier items in a more precise manner than humans or mechanics alone could (monitor temperature, put stuff into other stuff when it hits the exact one, extract everything a precise number of seconds later etc). This was then declared, by court, to be a distinct patent from the same process done via purely manual or mechanical means. A ruling that later lawyers built on to basically get de-facto software patents.
  - tracker1 11y ago
    The problem is that in certain segments, most specifically in terms of software development... the "valuable technology" can generally be implemented by anyone skilled in the crafy, and generally speaking doesn't have a lot of outlay in terms of research/development. That's not to say there aren't segments of software development that should qualify, but imho if allowed should really be more like 5 years, not 20 for software patents. And most software patents should simply have been denied outright.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Sure, most things in software can be implemented by anyone skilled in the craft, but how many can invent it? And furthermore, when speaking of "skilled in the art", let's keep in mind the perennial HN threads about hiring and how 99% of developers can't do FizzBuzz.
      - tracker1 11y ago
        I'm pretty sure a significant portion of software developers working a decade ago could "invent" one click ordering, podcasts, or double-tap actions.
  - forgotpwtomain 11y ago
    It's a tricky subject. The argument from the patent side is that if these companies could not patent their technologies / products, they would not be willing to invest nearly as much in development and this would generally hurt human progress. On the other-hand if you look at big companies like Apple, Facebook the amounts the are investing in genuine human progress is truly paltry compared to their net-worth, and what they are patenting is often ridiculous, generic and clearly not in any way conducive to human progress.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
It would be helpful to augment your perspective with multiple studies about patents based on empirical data. The situation week not appear so gloomy then, though it's certainly very complex.
doubt_me 11y ago
I have always had this feeling that patent wars are only around to make the lawyers more money. Imagine how many firms would lose millions if the major tech companies worked together EDIT: (nothing against lawyers in general since they are obviously just doing their jobs)
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  Not a big fan of lawyers (personally seen people screwed by them twice) but there's this weird meme that lawyers can make lawsuits happen as they please. The cases where this can happen are very rare as far as I can see, yet the meme persists.
  - doubt_me 11y ago
    Well I am not at all knowledgeable about the different types of lawyers out there but in general the problem doesn't even begin to start with them. Its all the USPTOs fault for even allowing software (zeros and ones) to be patented in the first place (There are probably very legitimate reasons for this that I don't know about). I don't even know how many resources and time are wasted in courts but I imagine it would be pretty shocking. I haven't heard anything about patent trolls for a while but their entire existence is based on bullshit lawyers and wasting the courts resources. (kinda getting off topic I guess I am done here)
    - icebraining 11y ago
      It's not up to the USPTO to decide what is patentable. The courts have repeatedly reaffirmed the legal validity of software patents, so the Patent Office would probably get sued itself if it discriminated against software inventions.
      - WildUtah 11y ago
        The USPTO isn't required to follow court rulings. The MPEP (Manual of Patent Examining Procedure) isn't even updated to reflect what the courts say unless the PTO likes it. If you don't like what PTO says, you can always just go to your local federal courthouse to sue for your patent. And the PTO gets sued all the time. The courts are split on the idea of software patenting because the Supreme Court doesn't understand what software is. Nobody alive can reconcile Benson, Flook, Diehr, Bilski, and Alice. There were four Supreme votes in 2010's Bilski that pure software logic was unpatentable but software that changed the hardware to make it work better was patentable and the example of eligibility was linear programming and compression. Only Scalia was smart enough to see the problem there and even he can't articulate why. The CAFC -- the patent appeals court -- is relentless in overturning Supreme Court precedents against software patents. Known for being contemptuous of the law and harboring a deeply corrupt majority, the CAFC sees software patents as a gravy train for the patent bar and a permanent tax on a major industry for the benefit of the judges and their friends. Their opinions on the most awful abusive patents reflect a pirate's mentality deliberately ignoring cheating to reach the most harmful conclusions.
tdylan 11y ago
Patents seem to have a net negative effect, blatantly anti-competitive.
- jupiter2 11y ago
  This is another issue that irks me to no end. Companies like Microsoft and Apple reaped the benefits, early on, of little to no software patent protection laws. They copied and outright pilfered everything out there - and it was ok... Those early years saw tremendous competition. It's hard to explain how exciting technology was back then - so many options. I remember learning about and trying to decide between DOS, Amiga, Commodore, Apple IIs/Mac, Atari. These were the OSes/PCs I focused on (not including Unix). Yet, this was nothing compared to the (healthy) competition among app developers. Very innovative times. Nowadays, if you have even a smidgeon of success - you're either bought out by those who successfully gamed the system or sued into submission.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > Companies like Microsoft and Apple reaped the benefits, early on, of little to no software patent protection laws. They copied and outright pilfered everything out there - and it was ok Law suits over look and feel have been happening since the 1980s, well before MS or Apple got big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderbund_Software_Inc._v._Unison_World,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broderbund_Software_Inc._v._Un.... Lotus started look and feel lawsuits in 1987: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_feel.22_lawsuits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_fee... Apple tried to sue MS over look and feel in 1994: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Micros.... They've always aggressively used law.

mtgx 11y ago

> Earlier this week, Microsoft re-signed an Android patent-protection pact with I-O Data for an undisclosed amount. You don't say? A patent protection pact. So they don't even try to hide the fact that it was a mafia-style protection racket all along now? "Such a nice business you got there. You wouldn't want it to be dragged in Court and lose millions or hundreds of millions of dollars? Why not just pay us this tiny $5 fee per phone, forever, instead, for an OS we never participated in creating?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

throwawaykf05 11y ago

TFA (perhaps unsurprisingly) does not mention this particular Microsoft-Google case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-upholds-microsofts-legal-win-over-motorola/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-uph... Of all the patent lawsuits that happened in all the smartphone wars that nobody won, this was the only case where a company was actually sanctioned for, essentially, abusing patents. And this happened on Google's watch. For all the rhetoric Google spewed about how their competitors were abusing patents, ironic that they were the one company that was actually found to be a bad actor. I always thought Google for too much of a free pass on that one. Interestingly the Ars article I linked does not mention Google at all. Guess it's not so surprising they got a free pass.

nemothekid 11y ago
Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's acquisition of Moto. It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue). Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google
- chc 11y ago
  > the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Google I think you mean Motorola and Microsoft.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.
  - nemothekid 11y ago
    Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was Microsoft who started the patent litigation against Motorola, and it was Motorola who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as the scope of the article goes).

ewzimm 11y ago

Definitely a move in the right direction. Software companies have operated with a war mentality for too long, despite their common interests. They trade employees pretty often too, exposed no-poaching agreements aside. Competition isn't going away any time soon, but I think everyone appreciates more interoperability and cooperation. Will the Internet communities following them be able to follow this example?

drdaeman 11y ago
I find it the opposite. In my perception, the patent hatched buried was actually a good thing for everyone else, because the patents were fought against (with the likely outcome to be revoked as non-patentable bullshit that software patents are). With that peace treaty, nothing is against those patents and they are actually strengthened, which is not something to celebrate. Of course, would the announcement contain something about dropping the patents (and not the lawsuits), my opinion would be surely different. But all I've read is that two giants won't touch each other and it's not something I do care about.
- ewzimm 11y ago
  I see your point. But there will be a lot of opportunities for software patents to be tested in court. When people look at history and see companies agreeing not to sue each other, what direction will that push the argument? I hope a good one.

znemz 11y ago

So does this mean the next nexus will get an micro-sd card slot? Cause this is has kept me away from one due to this meaningless feud.

doubt_me 11y ago
They completely avoided this question in their reddit AMA https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3mzrl9/hi_im_hiroshi_lockheimer_here_at_google_with_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3mzrl9/hi_im_hiroshi_...

ycitera 11y ago

They make patent peace with themselves but not with the small guys?

shmerl 11y ago

So will MS stop demanding money from various Android manufacturers now? In general I hope they'll change their attitude from patent aggression to patent disarmament. We need more changes like this.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- shmerl 11y ago
  It can be also related to a set of patents published by China earlier which MS used to demand Android patent protection money. It could undermine their patent aggression efforts.

michaelwww 11y ago

I wonder if Apple enabling ad blocking in iPhones and iPads had something to do with this. Many see it as a direct shot at rival Google, which makes most of it's money from advertising. Days later and suddenly Microsoft and Google are besties. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

nobrains 11y ago

Do you think this handshake was partly due to the CEOs of both Microsoft (Satya Nadella) and Google (Sundar Pichai) having the same roots (India)?

utuxia 11y ago

Google is slowly becoming the next Microsoft.

utuxia 11y ago

Google is slowly becoming the next Microsoft.

jupiter2 11y ago

"Google and Microsoft agreed to work together against patent trolls in the European Union." I hope the irony of this isn't lost on anyone - especially as it relates to Microsoft.