6 ms·

Well, they did have cross licensing agreement with Microsoft back in 2007, but that didn't cover telecommunications. http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-

by Zaim2 15y ago

Well, they did have cross licensing agreement with Microsoft back in 2007, but that didn't cover telecommunications. http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-deal/2100-1014_3-6177381.html http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft%2C-Samsung-in-patent-swap-dea... Maybe the they'll choose to go to court this time, as Samsung is well armed patent wise. MS' objective is clear: to make the cost of Android greater than the cost of a Windows phone license, so the "free" advantage is no longer is valid.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
These patents have already been tested in court by other Android handset manufacturers and MS won. Samsung would only be increasing the cost, reducing the likelihood of a favourable partnership deal and postponing the inevitable.
- Zaim2 15y ago
  Do you have links/sources? I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone else immediately settled.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Sorry, you're right, the other five didn't actually fight it, I'd thought one of them had. What I would say thought is (a) Motorola's fight isn't going brilliantly and (b) when the likes of HTC - hardly small fry - think it's best just to license, there's probably something there.
- Hoff 15y ago
  That's not the way that patent cross-licensing works.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    So you're saying that if one handset manufacturer had had a legal ruling against them for patent violations relating to Android that wouldn't create a legal precedent?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - Hoff 15y ago
      Just because you've won a judgement or because you have received licensing payments does not ensure your negotiation position is invulnerable, whether this is due to the patent portfolio (and your own potential for infringements of that portfolio) or the particular domain knowledge or awareness of prior art that might be available to your opponent. This particular business situation is fairly common, and can lead to so-called patent cross-licensing. A form of corporate truce. And there may well be consideration paid (and in either direction), but that's all subject to negotiation.

by Zaim2 15y ago

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

These patents have already been tested in court by other Android handset manufacturers and MS won. Samsung would only be increasing the cost, reducing the likelihood of a favourable partnership deal and postponing the inevitable.

Zaim2 15y ago
Do you have links/sources? I only know of Barnes & Noble and Motorola fighting against MS, afaik everyone else immediately settled.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  Sorry, you're right, the other five didn't actually fight it, I'd thought one of them had. What I would say thought is (a) Motorola's fight isn't going brilliantly and (b) when the likes of HTC - hardly small fry - think it's best just to license, there's probably something there.
Hoff 15y ago
That's not the way that patent cross-licensing works.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  So you're saying that if one handset manufacturer had had a legal ruling against them for patent violations relating to Android that wouldn't create a legal precedent?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hoff 15y ago
    Just because you've won a judgement or because you have received licensing payments does not ensure your negotiation position is invulnerable, whether this is due to the patent portfolio (and your own potential for infringements of that portfolio) or the particular domain knowledge or awareness of prior art that might be available to your opponent. This particular business situation is fairly common, and can lead to so-called patent cross-licensing. A form of corporate truce. And there may well be consideration paid (and in either direction), but that's all subject to negotiation.