Google responds to Microsoft’s Samsung Android patent deal

By Tom Warren, on 28th Sep 11 7:18 pm with 115 Comments

Google vs Microsoft

Google issued a statement on Wednesday in response to Microsoft’s recent Android patent deal with Samsung.

Google branded Microsoft’s tactics as “extortion” in a statement sent to TechCrunch on Wednesday:

“This is the same tactic we’ve seen time and again from Microsoft. Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others’ achievements and hinder the pace of innovation. We remain focused on building new technology and supporting Android partners.”

Google’s strong worded statement followed an announcement on Wednesday that Samsung had signed an Android patent deal with Microsoft. The software giant will receive royalty payments for each Samsung smartphone and tablet that ships with the Google Android operating system. Microsoft has managed to sign identical deals with six other Android manufacturers in the past three months and is currently involved in litigation with Motorola to force a similar deal. Microsoft has previously inked patent protection deals with WistronGeneral Dynamics Itronix,Velocity Micro,OnkyoAcer and Viewsonic. The agreements all appear to be identical to each other and provide cash royalties to Microsoft. The deals follow a  HTC and Microsoft patent agreement signed last year relating to HTC’s mobile phones running Android. Although the terms of the deal were undisclosed, it was recently reported that Microsoft receives $5 for every HTC device sold. Microsoft is widely believed to generate more revenue from Android patents than its own Windows Phone licences.

Microsoft filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) recently, asking the ITC to block imports of some Motorola Android phones in the United States. The resolution could be a lengthy process due to Google’s recent acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Google announced in August that it plans to acquire Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion. Google CEO Larry Page noted at the time of the deal announcement that Microsoft and Apple are “banding together in anti-competitive patent attacks on Android.” Citing recent patent auctions, Page expects that Google’s acquisition will help protect Android in the future. A number of analysts believe Google’s deal could be beneficial to Microsoft’s Windows Phone, creating more competition between the three major smartphone operating systems.

Microsoft responded to Google’s statement on Wednesday by branding Google cry babies. Microsoft’s corporate vice president of corporate communications, Frank Shaw, tweeted the following:

Microsoft's Google statement response

  • Alique Williams

    I’m on Googles side on this one. Patents are raw bs.

    • Jwelch_mi

      Google does the same friggin thing.  They should take their medicine and shut up.

    • Alique Williams

      Where have they done such a thing? That being said, it is still bs.

    • http://twitter.com/winningguy Nelson Ocampo

      It’s BS to protect your intellectual property?

    • Test1ngi23

      @ Nelson Ocampo

      The way I figure it is if you are making more money off your competitor’s product than your own, then maybe your own product is BS.

    • Sarah_gilbert

       
      @e150a27e646961d5594b4ac9b6bd58f3:disqus 
      They are making money on their Ip and patent and not competitor’s product. Competitor can create a product and then license the IP from the creator. That’s what all fair companies do – MSFT, AAPL, Samsung, HTC, you have to respect other people’s IP and license it or innovate something on your own. Android is not an innovation, its a fork of Linux and some Java crap, therefore even ORCL is suing them. Patents promote innovation, I have one and if you copy it, I will come after you. Also, most stupid people don’t understand that you can always either improve upon an invention, invent something new or even wait for 17 yrs. for the patent to expire. But, GOOG does not want to do any of these, they want to GROW FAST AT OTHER PEOPLE”S EXPENSE. that’s not how industries succeed. The Viagra that you take everyday is also patented, otherwise China will copy every medicine and whole pharma industry will collapse. GOOG is the China of tech industry. They want to do everything and grow fast at other ppl’s expense. I appreciate Samsung, HTC, Acer, Casio, etc. who have realized this and licensed IP. By GOOG issuing these crappy statements, they are undermining the decisions made by their partner executives. EFF GOOG. You either INNOVATE or YOU HAVE TO MAST***ATE

    • Test1ngi23

      Name one case where Google sued anybody over patent infringement. And don’t tell me Google doesn’t have any patents to sue over because they do.

    • Guest

      You’re right. Google prefers to hide behind partners like HTC and sell them patents so they can do Google’s bidding.

    • Anonymous

      Google are usually the copiers, not the ones being copied, so they don’t really have anything to sue about.  Google voice was pretty good (though the tech behind it had already been done by others), as was street view,  and PageRank helped them, but most of what Google has done has just been a copy of something else.

    • mike

      how so?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pedro-Roque/100000194503830 Pedro Roque

      Of course they are! Paying for other people-s work is so lame! We want everything free!

    • Justfortherecord

      If everything is free? how would you own the house you live in? or drive the car you drive in? What is the incentive to innovate. We would all still be swinging from the trees with out innovation. Patents are a necessary part of innovation. As technology becomes ubiquitous it comes down to differentiation in the services offered and the customer service of the technology. Patents are the leverage for driving innovation.

      More short sighted people talking about nothing they understand. Most of these people like technology but have no idea on how and what it took to put that technology in their grubby little fingers. Patents protect innovation, not hinder it. Google is crying foul because much of their technology is built upon other peoples technology.

      Google is crying because they see their business as being threatened. But isn’t that the reason why lawsuits are enacted to protect competitive advantage?

    • Test1ngi23

      LOL. Even though I strongly disagree with him, I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

    • Anonymous

      I’m sure we would be better off without patents. /s

      Genius.

    • Alique Williams

      Patents are designed to restrict innovation, not promote it. It’s not a concept that was ever conceived of by free people in a free market. All it is is one group of people bribing the government to use force against others from using an idea.

    • Guest

      Funny, the record of the US shows they have done the exact opposite. But sorry to interrupt your meme with facts.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/San-Ien-Jao/717169541 San Ien Jao

      If you got a really good  idea that would make you bllions, wouldn’t you be quite angry if someone else took it and made YOUR money… except you won’t get any of them :-D There are always pros and cons in every systems….  

    • Anonymous

      Too true. Ben Franklin was opposed to patents for that very reason. Restrictions on information help nobody. I can’t agree fully though as I do agree that small innovators should be able to use their innovations to make their mark. Big bullies though? I don’t think they should be allowed patent protection because then it just becomes a matter of suppression of competition.

    • Guest

      Actually in the US, it was exactly conceived by free people in a free market. What’s next, are you going to argue the world is flat?

    • Anonymous

      you don’t know what you are talking about, do you?

    • http://www.facebook.com/J88NYR Jonny Rose

      Urgh, Patents are designed to PROTECT innovation.

    • Anonymous

      Patents are designed to protect innovation. You are still free to improve on the patented work and patent better methods or devices.

    • Guest

      when a company spent billion of dollars on D&R, they SHOULD protect their patents.

    • Guest

      If they’re public, not only should they but they have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to do so.

    • Guest

      Look up PageRank and get back to us. Also, your statement the other day that Gates was forced out as CEO of MS is total bs,

    • Anonymous

      In this case I have to disagree with you. While I agree the patent system is a bit disfunctional, Microsoft does have a right to protect it’s intellectual property and should continue to do so. Obvioulsy these companies feel that Microsoft has some legs to satnd on here. Oherwse Samsung, who isn’t afraid to fight a legal battle, would never have signed this sort of agreement.

    • Alique Williams

      Microsoft owns android?

    • Anonymous

      I don’t believe anyone has said that. Just that technologies within Android ARE owned by Microsoft. I make no claims to know whether this is in fact true or not. My point was that Samsung, and all the other companies that have signed licensing agreements, seem to think that Microsoft has some basis for their claims.

    • Guest

      Are you reading impaired?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/San-Ien-Jao/717169541 San Ien Jao

      Yeah haha never thought of it that way… but sure they own some of it, it woud appear haha

    • J A

      Then you have no idea what anything is. If there is no incentive, why would any company invest billions of dollars and years of R&D only to create a technology that is free for everyone to use? If that is the case, then there will be absolutely no innovation, which is why the open source market can never be as lucrative as commercial/proprietary technologies and neither can they work as well or be as polished.

    • Monkey D Black

      while I don’t agree with “work as well” I do agree with everything else

    • Test1ngi23

      Tell that to all the companies running their business on Linux. They seem to be doing quite nicely.

    • Alique Williams

      Why do you associate a lack of patents with free? Why do you associate it with a lack of incentive to innovate?

    • Guest

      Why do you ignore the fact that the country with the strongest patent protection laws just happens to be the one that have spawned the leading companies in almost every worldwide industry?

    • Test1ngi23

      @ Guest

      If you’re an executive at one of those companies, then yes, that’s a good thing. If you’re an average consumer, then that’s not necessarily a good thing. Aren’t most things from China cheaper than things made in the US? As a consumer, I stand to benefit more from China than from the US.

    • http://www.facebook.com/J88NYR Jonny Rose

      Because anything you invent, you would not be able to protect, and someone else can just come along and copy it. Companys dont innovate for the sake of innovating. They innovate to create something unique (which wouldnt happen without patents), that they can make a profit from. They wouldnt be a buisness otherwise.

    • Anonymous

      What you’re saying basically is that Linux cannot exist because it’s free, yet the reality is quite different. The sometimes free products that emerge from research often lead to greater capabilities and higher productivity in other areas, which is a good reason to invest.

      Had it not been for this philosophy, containerized shipping as we know it today may not have been.

      Malcom McLean’s decision to give his patent away caused the greatest shift in product delivery the world has ever seen. He made nothing from the patent, but due to the rapid adoption of his free patent by every shipping company in the world, his company SeaLand, now Maersk, is huge. Much bigger than it would have been otherwise. 

      Malcom McLean made much more money by giving his patent away than he could have if he had imposed a fee. This is just one example of patent fees sometimes being more hurtful than helpful.

    • Test1ngi23

      Amen!

      The idea of owning a “thought” or “idea” is just plain stupid. Ideas are of an entirely different nature than physical object. The sooner we stop trying to pretend they’re the same, the faster technology can progress. I’m not talking about copyright here, just software patents (though I should throw biomedical patents in there too).

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/San-Ien-Jao/717169541 San Ien Jao

      Dude an software and hardware whats the difference? If you made/invented it, you own it, and you should be allowed to make some money on it? Are you a commy or what? :-D 

    • Test1ngi23

      I believe you have the right to sell your copyrighted software because it’s an end product. I just think that owning the ideas you used to make your software is stupid because you are trying to own a thought.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/San-Ien-Jao/717169541 San Ien Jao

      Not really as it isn’t as much a thought as it is a pice of code. They can take a physical thing you have made as little as they can take a piece of code, which the way I understand it what MS is patening – a piece of code. I do understand your point but I think you are getting it wrong. As it is now you aren’t and can’t paten a thought as you can’t tell who got the thought first. The one that first manifest the thought to a software/hardware can patent it.

      Sorry for my awful English but I hope you get my point.

    • Guest

      So Google’s PageRank, upon which it was founded and secured its Vc capital, didn’t deserve a patent? After all, it was just an “idea”. LOL. Why do you think the VCs were willing to front the money?

      If you had every had a worthy idea in your entire trolling life, you’d doubtless be all for patents on ideas. Instead, like most Linsux idiots, you think people who don’t create should be free to steal liberally from those who do.

    • Test1ngi23

      Yes, I really wish PageRank was not patented. Bing could really benefit from it. But alas, it is patented.
      Until Google starts suing people over PageRank or any of their other patents, I will maintain that Google is less evil that Microsoft when it comes to patents.

    • Emi Cyberschreiber

      you talk like that because its not your technology. if you created something and you got it patentedand someone or a company goes and use your technology, and gets money for that i wonder if you will go and say “nah its ok, patents are raw bs. they can keep using my technology i dont care” yeah.. sure! oh but, wait. i bet you wouldn’t even patent your tech since… you say they are “raw bs”

    • http://www.facebook.com/J88NYR Jonny Rose

      Then you have no clue about business. With out patents there would be no inovation

    • Anonymous

      So how would you stop people from taking your ideas and research and using it after you do all the heavy lifting?

    • Anonymous

      Google only believes patents they don’t hold are BS so you aren’t on their side.

    • Anonymous

      I wanna know what your stance would be if your house one day got burglarized and when the police showed up after you called 911 they told you that burglary laws are just raw bs

  • Anonymous

    Google you steal data, steals patents…

    • Anonymous

      Steal is a harsh word.  They prefer Copy and Paste.  Android has supported it from day one.

      (sorry for reusing a joke from earlier)

    • Anonymous

      LOL… That joke is a year old but I had to take a step back to get it, again.

  • Anonymous

    Google, you mad? LOL

    • Anonymous

      I think Google is very mad.  They can’t understand why in this day and age of the internet they have to still abide by silly outdated things like laws and regulations.

    • Tom

      Google is not mad.  It’s a teenager.

      As is the Google employee who wrote that response.

    • Anonymous

      Haha! Just turned 13 yesterday… so it qualifies :P

    • http://twitter.com/OldCongress Gamer

      just LOLOL

  • Bprajapa

    suck it up google, this is the business world and they are just following the rules 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pedro-Roque/100000194503830 Pedro Roque

    Google, pay up and shut up!

  • Guest

    “Waaah” haha. Good summary Frank Shaw.

    • Anonymous

      Yeah, that is pretty much the perfect response from MS.  Google sounds like a teenager who feels the world is unfair.

  • Anonymous

    We’ll soon see how Google really feels about patents when others user Google’s patents.  I’m sure Google would feel differently if another company get their hands on Google’s algorithm and used it in that company’s own products.

  • Guest

    Dear Google,

    If you hadn’t knowingly infringed other people’s IP, they wouldn’t have any basis for coming after your OEMs. Instead of whining about it, why don’t you step in and indemnify your OEM partners from these so-called merit less patent claims? Oh right, because you can’t even defend yourself and are about to lose big to Oracle. So this is all a smokescreen intended to take focus off what you did wrong and instead play on the dated but still pervasive “big bad MS” sentiment. Only it’s not working. Remember “do no evil”? That didn’t last long did it?

    Sincerely,

    Former Google admirer.

    • Test1ngi23

      It’s kind of hard to get enough money to indemnify someone when you’re making $0 in licensing fees from them.

    • Anonymous

      They charge licensing fees for Google services. 

    • Guest

      Apparently you’re confused about Google’s business model. Let me enlighten you. Here’s the statement from their own internal document:

      “Android isn’t a new product to monetize; it’s a new medium to drive
      monetization on existing products.”

      So no, it’s not hard to get the money to indemnify their OEM partners. They can just take it out of Search profits as another expense, as they already are for Android development and marketing.

    • Guest

      lol. Test1ngi23 walked right into that one.

    • Mark
    • Grs_dev

      once again @e150a27e646961d5594b4ac9b6bd58f3:disqus confirms my suspicions…

  • Anonymous

    Utter bullshit.

    Folks, Google’s strategy is to steal, get the market share first and worry about legal matters later. They even betrayed their partners by buying Motorola. If they have any sense of justice left in them, they should pay up those patent fees on Samsung’s behalf.

  • Anonymous

    MS pays out big time for royalties & patents, not sure why Google thinks they can be and should be the exception to that. Not sure why Google picks on MS either, all cell phone companies/carriers/developers all cross license patents for almost every bit of technology in and on phones, networks and switching systems.

  • http://twitter.com/starksimon Stark

    Boo fucking hoo. Google makes me sick. Those “we want everything for free” bitches are constantly whining about something. Your time has passed, Google. Time to die.

    • FT

      Ha, you wish.  MS is irrelevant and fading fast.

    • http://twitter.com/starksimon Stark

      Hmmmm, let me see…

      Microsoft’s sources of income: Windows (soon app store), Office + Office365, Xbox, Windows Phone (Zune Marketplace, music + apps), Hardware (keyboards, mice), Surface, Azure, Microsoft Game Studios and… *drumroll* ANDROID!

      Google’s sources of income: AdWords (around 97%)

      Yup, you’re right, Microsoft is irrelevant and fading fast. /sarcasm

      You’re just a stupid fanboy or stoned as hell (but probably both).

  • http://twitter.com/abhi1manyu Abhimanyu Jamwal

    google rules: 1. we are too innocent to cheat.
    rule: 2 If we cheat, its fine, its open source and dont blame us.
    rule: 3 If you dont agree to rule 2, read rule 1
    rule: 4 we still dont believe in rules, laws and anything that goes against google.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pedro-Roque/100000194503830 Pedro Roque

      Except on case of technologies to important to Google’s business, in witch case, rule 5 applies.

      Rule 5: If the technology is fundamental to our business, f**k Open Source

    • Guest

      Rule 6: if everything else fails, blame MS.

    • Anonymous

      Rule 7: “Do (insert tech) anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way.”

  • http://twitter.com/rameshthanikodi Ramesh Thanikodi

    well Google, all this wouldn’t have happened if you guys didn’t steal ideas from both Apple and Microsoft.

    • Anonymous

      Don’t forget Oracle/Sun.

  • Anonymous

    I do believe that IP holders should be compensated for the use of their IP.  I think it’s the timing that leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths.  If the lawsuits had started with the very first Android device, when Android was nothing, it would have been seen clearly as MS protecting their IP.  It doesn’t seem, I could be wrong, I can’t remember the lawsuits starting that early,  that either MS or Apple cared about Android when it was new.  But now that it’s a device selling power house, its infringments matter…  I have to wonder if Windows Mobile had been second to iPhone and Android was floundering in 4th place, would they still be screaming about it violating patents?  And where MSFT is likely right, the timing has people seeing them as the losers striking out from a case of sour grapes.  It almost makes me, a MSFT fan want to buy a Blackberry.  They aren’t picking fights with Android OEMs they are busy fast and furious trying to save themselves from oblivion…

    • Guest

      The discussions started long time ago. Lawsuits only came about for those who wouldn’t settle. But nice troll. Buh bye.

    • Anonymous

      ah so anyone that doesn’t agree with you or someone else is a troll is it.  I’d say we are here to comment and discuss your free to disagree, that’s welcome and part of the nature of discussion.  Calling people trolls for having an opinion that you or others disagree with is childish.

    • Sarah_gilbert

      its all business. if Linux takes 10% share of PC market, MSFT will come after Linux OEMs too. If it does not affect routine business, why bother? If you neighbor is an idiot, do you go after him? You will go after him only if he starts harassing you.

  • http://twitter.com/laserfloyd Lewis McCrary

    I guess one could say “SHAAAAAWWWWWW YEAAAHHHHHHH!!”
    ;)

  • Anonymous

    Translation: “This is the same tactic we’ve senm time and again from Microsoft. Always trying to follow the rules and not letting us steal their intellectual property. Wah! We will continue to focus on ripping off Bing and survive on the single thing that has made our company succeed: our annoying ads!”

    • Test1ngi23

      Good thing Bing doesn’t make any money off of annoying ads. Oh, wait… https://adcenter.microsoft.com/

    • Inspector_renault

      You tell him.

    • Anonymous

      That wasn’t the point, Einstein.  The point was that it’s not Microsoft’s only source of revenue.

    • Test1ngi23

      Do you like the fact that you can watch all your favorite TV programs without ever paying a dime to any of the TV networks? I do. As do most people. We’ll take ads over fees any day.

      Besides, most TV networks make ALMOST ALL their money from ads. Does that make them sh*tty companies too?

    • Anonymous

      I realize you’re too simple minded to understand the point here, so I really shouldn’t waste my energy trying to explain this to you, but (1) everyone agrees that ads are annoying and (2) I never said that ads were unnecessary. What I said was that ads were not Microsoft’s only source of revenue. Now I’ve said it three times for you. If you can’t keep up, buddy, takes notes!

    • Anonymous

      It may be way over your head, but the point he was making is that Bing could close down right now and MS would actually be making more money.  If Google loses its foothold in search, it is done for.

    • Anonymous

      Is it just me or does anyone else feel like test1ngi23 walked on a very intelligent conversation only to discuss last night’s American idol?

      Seriously does this dude ever even read the threads before spewing the first thing that comes to his mind?

      What does selling online ads have to do with infringing on other’s IP?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/San-Ien-Jao/717169541 San Ien Jao

    Comon Google everyone sues everyone its normal! Apple sues Samsungs, Samsung Sues Apple, Google sue someon, MS sue Samsung thats how the system it is no biggy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pedro-Roque/100000194503830 Pedro Roque

    Hey, Google, how’s that Motorola deal working out for you?

  • http://www.facebook.com/nick.cromwell Nick Cromwell

    I noticed this a while ago but never thought to say it until now; but has anyone else noticed that google’s little chrome icon includes all the colors of the windows icon? What a joke.

    • Sarah_gilbert

      Awesome. I think MSFt should sue them for copyright violation now.

  • Anonymous

    It seems Google’s original idea of creating an ecosystem based on their free OS isn’t going to plan. Android is their best free OS effort so far, but now it’s “advantage” being chipped away.

    Google wants to topple MS with their OSes. Sadly for them, Chrome is a failure. Android is popular, but by no means a great success.

    Once the cost of Android becomes too great, phone manufacturers will move away from it, as it seems Samsung may do soon…

    • Anonymous

      Except the biggest threat to Android’s “free” advantage is neither Microsoft or Apple, but Oracle. Notice how Google isn’t nearly as brazen to bash them as openly as they do MS and Apple.

    • Anonymous

      You may be right. We’ll just have to see how the court case goes. Personally, I hope Oracle wins, despite my feelings about Ellison and Oracle. Google should not have created their own Java implementation, a direct violation of the Java license.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly. Android is a good platform, but violating patents and licenses is not the way to do it. Though it seems that this case is going to drag on for a while as no side is budging (to be expected).

  • Anonymous

    If it’s so unfair and Android isn’t infringing on any of MS’s patents, why is everyone and their mother signing cross-licensing agreements with them? And don’t tell me it’s because they’d rather not get into a long lawsuit because of litigation costs. When Apple sued HTC, Samsung, they fought back with suits of their own. With MS, they seem to just acknowledge and pony up.

  • http://www.mainstreetchatham.com/ JimmyFal

    Cry babies, I doubt anyone would enter into these “deals” unless they kind of agreed that they may have copied and pasted a little bit of code. Sounds like they are trying to avoid getting sued by signing agreements. Itty boo…

  • Anonymous

    epic twit.

  • Hoyoungwon

    U mad bro?
    Hahahahahahaha

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Viki-Maverick/100002523433166 Viki Maverick

    Its not Google. It’s Smeagol.

  • Seth_p

    LOL, Frank you have made my day

  • Anonymous

    The thing is Google is in BIG trouble. They keep trying to create new revenue streams wit no success. Android proves little income and greater liabilities due to IP violations. Chrome OS is going nowhere and now they’re about to blow $12.5 billion on Motorola Mobility. Meanwhile Bing is chipping away at their core business(ads). I wouldn’t be shocked if Google ends up out of business by 2020.

  • Guestly

    I have no love for MS, but Frank’s response was perfect :-)

  • Anonymous

    If google only spent some of that 12 bill on patent licensing, instead of buying MMI.  Wonder how things would played out.

  • Anonymous

    ………………………………..

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=515099139 Marcus Brown

    Google: It is very clear to everyone involved, that we Google stole bits and pieces from our competitors platforms to build our own, We are very upset that we got caught doing so and will continue to fight for our right to steal from our competitors. We find it completley unfair that companies like Microsoft insist that our partners pay for our theft and wish it would stop please.

  • Oh Hai :D

    If google thinks that software patents should be void then why dont they release their top secret search algorithms for all to use???

  • Aaustin2911

    Patents are necessary but the system is dysfunctional and outdated when an idea can be around the world in moments. Patents should continue but be more limited to physical products. Certainly necessary in pharmacutical industry — but with software it just means in real terms we pay more and advances stop or slow down. Microsoft and Apple focus on destroying others to protect themselves with closed systems and lawyers. Both systems are blotware, insular and force people through marketing down their ideas/path of what is right.

  • Bill Gates

    lol xbots are out in force, whoever thinks this is a win for ‘us’ consumers is a retard, Google is the only company with innovation today, without companies like Google you would still be using IE 6, Android and Chrome have been a huge success and WILL continue to be so despite what you Micro$oft fanboys say, you can now return to your xbox