Microsoft and Foxconn Parent Sign Patent Agreement For Android Devices

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Microsoft Corp. and Hon Hai, the parent company of Foxconn, signed a worldwide patent licensing agreement that provides broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for devices running the Android and Chrome OS, including smartphones, tablets and televisions. While the contents of the agreement are confidential, the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from Hon Hai under the agreement. Hon Hai joins a growing list of contract manufacturing and original design manufacturing companies with Android and Chrome patent licenses.
 
sliverjazz said:
I guess this is for Apple turning their backs on them.
Click to expand...

:confused: ... how does paying a license to microsoft affect Apple? Foxconn did not build Apple products exclusively ... this will make Android products less profitable for Foxconn ... the only company who benefits from these agreements is MS since they make money off of the dominant OS and if the licensing fees get high enough it makes their own OS more competitive ;)
 
kbrickley said:
:confused: ... how does paying a license to microsoft affect Apple? Foxconn did not build Apple products exclusively ... this will make Android products less profitable for Foxconn ... the only company who benefits from these agreements is MS since they make money off of the dominant OS and if the licensing fees get high enough it makes their own OS more competitive ;)
Click to expand...

MS is becoming a Patent Troll now?
I am sure if they piss Google off enough Google will go after MS.
 
Wrench00 said:
MS is becoming a Patent Troll now?
I am sure if they piss Google off enough Google will go after MS.
Click to expand...

They are already suing each other ... Motorolla is the only major producer of Android products who isn't licensing the Microsoft patents ... MS has deals with all the other top companies, including Samsung

MS has an extensive patent portfollio from their own R&D efforts as a software company ... I think all of the patents being licensed are from existing or previous MS products ... most patent trolls produce no actual services or products ... Most license agreements with MS involve patent exchanges + fees (I think) so they are not a traditional patent troll the way the term is usually applied :cool:
 
Wrench00 said:
MS is becoming a Patent Troll now?
I am sure if they piss Google off enough Google will go after MS.
Click to expand...

As kbrickley said, they already are but on other matters. No one seems to be challenging this specific action of Microsoft getting royalties on Android. I have no idea about how valid Microsoft's claim is here but the fact that the largest OEMs and even Google have barely lifted a finger to fight this does seem very odd.
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...-deal-with-microsoft-its-really-about-google/ ... interesting take on this at Forbes ... this could actually put Foxconn in a good position to win contract manufacturing business from other Android OEMs since the Foxconn license would protect them from making their own payments or future litigation (if they aren't paying MS a license currently) ... sounds like a decent strategy for Foxconn
 
kbrickley said:
:confused: ... how does paying a license to microsoft affect Apple? Foxconn did not build Apple products exclusively ... this will make Android products less profitable for Foxconn ... the only company who benefits from these agreements is MS since they make money off of the dominant OS and if the licensing fees get high enough it makes their own OS more competitive ;)
Click to expand...

In other words, Microsoft can't compete so they resort to state-imposed violence to steal money from their competitors, who have a better product, as an alternative.

MS has an extensive patent portfollio from their own R&D efforts as a software company ... I think all of the patents being licensed are from existing or previous MS products ... most patent trolls produce no actual services or products ... Most license agreements with MS involve patent exchanges + fees (I think) so they are not a traditional patent troll the way the term is usually applied
Click to expand...

Anyone that uses a patent is a troll because a patent is a monopolistic state privilege in the finest tradition of 18th Century English Nobility.
 
damicatz said:
In other words, Microsoft can't compete so they resort to state-imposed violence to steal money from their competitors, who have a better product, as an alternative.



Anyone that uses a patent is a troll because a patent is a monopolistic state privilege in the finest tradition of 18th Century English Nobility.
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't hold my breath on patents going away in yours or my lifetimes ... they will never fit into some people's world view but most companies (including Google) like them when they work in their favor ... the system needs reform but it works more often than it fails and we get better products because if it ... Intellectual Property is exactly that (Property) and it deserves adequate protection (which is why all countries have patent laws) ;)

software patents though are particularly flawed and definitely need some reforms or the change to some other form of Intellectual Property protection (like the Copyright) ... although I suspect that some folks dislike copyrights as much as they dislike patents :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
Well, I wouldn't hold my breath on patents going away in yours or my lifetimes ... they will never fit into some people's world view but most companies (including Google) like them when they work in their favor ... the system needs reform but it works more often than it fails and we get better products because if it ... Intellectual Property is exactly that (Property) and it deserves adequate protection (which is why all countries have patent laws) ;)

software patents though are particularly flawed and definitely need some reforms or the change to some other form of Intellectual Property protection (like the Copyright) ... although I suspect that some folks dislike copyrights as much as they dislike patents :cool:
Click to expand...

The term "Intellectual Property" is disingenuous because things like copyrights and patents are contrary to the notion of true property rights. It is a propaganda term designed to equate simple copying with theft. The term "Imaginary Property" is more accurate.

Property rights derive from scarcity. Physical objects are scarce; if I, for example, take your car, you no longer have use of that car. That car exists in only one place and it cannot be copied or duplicated with our current level of technology (You could make other cars that look like yours but they would not be comprised of the same atoms). Two people cannot both have simultaneous possession of the car and so the concept of property rights exists as a way to fairly determine who should be able to control a given physical object.

Ideas are not scarce. An idea can be copied without depriving anyone else of its use. Thus, there is no ethical or moral basis for a property right in an idea because multiple people can use an idea simultaneously. Whether or not patents or copyright work or encourage innovation is irrelevant (they don't but even if they did, it wouldn't justify them); the ends cannot be used to justify the means. You cannot justify a violent trespass upon someone else's justly acquired physical, tangible property on the basis that doing so has positive consequences for some people.

In fact, "Imaginary Property" infringes on true property rights because it prevents someone from using their property in a peaceful manner of their choose. For example, copyright makes it illegal to arrange the magnetic bits on your hard drive in a certain fashion; this is a violation of your property rights in that hard drive because, as your hard drive, as your property, you have the right to arrange those bits in any fashion you chose. Anything less contradicts the notions of even having property rights (and a lack of strong property rights is the biggest driver of inequality in the US; the government can steal your property in thousands of ways and only the rich can afford to play the system, even using it to their advantage to steal other, less fortunate people's property).
 
damicatz said:
The term "Intellectual Property" is disingenuous because things like copyrights and patents are contrary to the notion of true property rights. It is a propaganda term designed to equate simple copying with theft. The term "Imaginary Property" is more accurate.

Property rights derive from scarcity. Physical objects are scarce; if I, for example, take your car, you no longer have use of that car. That car exists in only one place and it cannot be copied or duplicated with our current level of technology (You could make other cars that look like yours but they would not be comprised of the same atoms). Two people cannot both have simultaneous possession of the car and so the concept of property rights exists as a way to fairly determine who should be able to control a given physical object.

Ideas are not scarce. An idea can be copied without depriving anyone else of its use. Thus, there is no ethical or moral basis for a property right in an idea because multiple people can use an idea simultaneously. Whether or not patents or copyright work or encourage innovation is irrelevant (they don't but even if they did, it wouldn't justify them); the ends cannot be used to justify the means. You cannot justify a violent trespass upon someone else's justly acquired physical, tangible property on the basis that doing so has positive consequences for some people.

In fact, "Imaginary Property" infringes on true property rights because it prevents someone from using their property in a peaceful manner of their choose. For example, copyright makes it illegal to arrange the magnetic bits on your hard drive in a certain fashion; this is a violation of your property rights in that hard drive because, as your hard drive, as your property, you have the right to arrange those bits in any fashion you chose. Anything less contradicts the notions of even having property rights (and a lack of strong property rights is the biggest driver of inequality in the US; the government can steal your property in thousands of ways and only the rich can afford to play the system, even using it to their advantage to steal other, less fortunate people's property).
Click to expand...

Except "good" ideas or "useful" ones are scarce ;) ... also, as you said, the value of something is dependent on its scarcity ... a Patent or Copyright allows you to control the "scarcity" of your idea by controlling who can use it ... although the "idea" may permit multiple users without diminishing the idea itself, you do diminish its value by making it less scarce

Since we live in a society that operates on the basis of "money", that is the ultimate measure of value ... it should be the choice of the rights holder who creates the idea to determine whether they wish their idea to be public domain (like Jonas Salk did) or to retain ownership of it (as most corporate owners do) ... the elimination of patents and copyrights has more of a socialist or communist feel to it and that is not the economic or political system we have :cool:
 
So, damicatz, if you come up with an idea that would make you millions but I use it instead to make millions for me, you would be ok with that? Although you did not give the idea to me to use and you can now no longer make any money off your own idea that I did not and would not have come up with? :rolleyes: So, that is not stealing than because it is not physical property but just something in your head that maybe your wrote in a word file?

Good luck with that.
 
ManofGod said:
So, damicatz, if you come up with an idea that would make you millions but I use it instead to make millions for me, you would be ok with that? Although you did not give the idea to me to use and you can now no longer make any money off your own idea that I did not and would not have come up with? :rolleyes: So, that is not stealing than because it is not physical property but just something in your head that maybe your wrote in a word file?

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

I'm with you.

Some people just don't get it.
 
kbrickley said:
Except "good" ideas or "useful" ones are scarce ;) ... also, as you said, the value of something is dependent on its scarcity ... a Patent or Copyright allows you to control the "scarcity" of your idea by controlling who can use it ... although the "idea" may permit multiple users without diminishing the idea itself, you do diminish its value by making it less scarce

Since we live in a society that operates on the basis of "money", that is the ultimate measure of value ... it should be the choice of the rights holder who creates the idea to determine whether they wish their idea to be public domain (like Jonas Salk did) or to retain ownership of it (as most corporate owners do) ... the elimination of patents and copyrights has more of a socialist or communist feel to it and that is not the economic or political system we have :cool:
Click to expand...

You are attempting to redefine terms. Scarcity refers to how many quantities of something exist. A specific car is scare because there is only one of that. If I take it, you no longer have it. Ideas can be instantiated an infinite number of times. They are, therefore, not scarce and there is no basis for property rights in them.

The value of any given thing is based solely on what people are willing to pay for it. I do not subscribe to the inherent or labor theories of value. A lot of things fall into place when you realize that nothing has an inherent value.

ManofGod said:
So, damicatz, if you come up with an idea that would make you millions but I use it instead to make millions for me, you would be ok with that? Although you did not give the idea to me to use and you can now no longer make any money off your own idea that I did not and would not have come up with? :rolleyes: So, that is not stealing than because it is not physical property but just something in your head that maybe your wrote in a word file?

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

You would first have to reverse engineer my invention. Until that time, I would have a natural monopoly. After you reverse engineer the invention you can market it. That means that now, in order to keep making money, I have to invent something better. Inventors will always make more money than copiers because inventors come out with a product first and, by virtue of the limited amount of supplies, will be selling in a market willing to pay higher prices for their product. Copiers, by definition, would have to offer something over the originator and if it is not an improved product, than it is cheaper prices (and a lower amount of profit). As such, copiers themselves have a motivation to improve upon that which they copy so that they, too, can enjoy greater profits.

This is not a foreign concept. Before the imaginary property cartel, people did this kind of thing all the time. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart and Chopin, if they lived in today's world, would all be in jail for criminal copyright infringement. Inventors, similarly, often base their inventions off of other's works. Humans work best when they work together in collaborative, peaceful, and voluntary efforts.
 
I would not have to reverse engineer anything since at that point, you have not built anything yet. It is just an idea at that point in your head and in a word file. Easy to build since the directions are all there but nothing physical is built yet.

Like I said, good luck with that.
 
ManofGod said:
I would not have to reverse engineer anything since at that point, you have not built anything yet. It is just an idea at that point in your head and in a word file. Easy to build since the directions are all there but nothing physical is built yet.

Like I said, good luck with that.
Click to expand...

And how would you obtain the Word file? If you broke into my computers, you have committed trespass upon my property which is a rights violation. If you copied it while under my employ, you have committed fraud because you misrepresented yourself and came under false pretenses. In addition, as an employer, I would be free to stipulate contractually that a condition of employment is that you can't copy ideas. This is different from patents because it is a voluntary agreement and it does not apply to people who have not specifically agreed to them. In either case, one does not need patent laws to deal with the above situations.
 
damicatz said:
You would first have to reverse engineer my invention. Until that time, I would have a natural monopoly. After you reverse engineer the invention you can market it. That means that now, in order to keep making money, I have to invent something better. Inventors will always make more money than copiers because inventors come out with a product first and, by virtue of the limited amount of supplies, will be selling in a market willing to pay higher prices for their product. Copiers, by definition, would have to offer something over the originator and if it is not an improved product, than it is cheaper prices (and a lower amount of profit). As such, copiers themselves have a motivation to improve upon that which they copy so that they, too, can enjoy greater profits.
Click to expand...

That is not as difficult as you make out ... if your invention is a drug it only has to be run through a mass spectrometer and a few other Wet Chemistry tests to identify the constituent content ... also Chinese companies are pretty good at reverse engineering stuff (they can reverse engineer all but the most complex items in weeks or months ... not very long for a "natural monopoly") ...

The anti capitalist approach only works if everyone is willing to play fair and mind the rules (we don't live in a world like that) ... right now people only follow the rules when laws make them (consider how many people speed under the assumption that it isn't illegal if you don't get caught ;) ) ... Patents define a "legal" basis for people AND companies to manage things that have value to them (ideas in this case) ... just because some folks think that ideas have no value doesn't make it so unless everybody thinks that way :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
That is not as difficult as you make out ... if your invention is a drug it only has to be run through a mass spectrometer and a few other Wet Chemistry tests to identify the constituent content ... also Chinese companies are pretty good at reverse engineering stuff (they can reverse engineer all but the most complex items in weeks or months ... not very long for a "natural monopoly") ...
Click to expand...

It still takes time to do that and then to do production runs and then get it into stores. That time is a natural monopoly that I have. After that, yes, they can sell it. I am forced then to either lower my prices to adjust to the supply (doing so at a lower profit) or to continue innovating so that I can continue to release new products with their own natural monopolies.

It is more work, yes. But capitalism is not supposed to reward people who sit on their laurels and patents do just that.

The anti capitalist approach only works if everyone is willing to play fair and mind the rules (we don't live in a world like that)
Click to expand...

Patents are anti-capitalist and anti-free market.

... right now people only follow the rules when laws make them (consider how many people speed under the assumption that it isn't illegal if you don't get caught ;) ) ... Patents define a "legal" basis for people AND companies to manage things that have value to them (ideas in this case) ... just because some folks think that ideas have no value doesn't make it so unless everybody thinks that way :cool:
Click to expand...

Again, this is flawed. Things do not have intrinsic or inherent values; the value of an object is derived solely from what other people are willing to pay for it. How can you claim that being against patents is anti-capitalist when patents allow someone to artificially manipulate market price and the market itself?
 
damicatz said:
It still takes time to do that and then to do production runs and then get it into stores. That time is a natural monopoly that I have. After that, yes, they can sell it. I am forced then to either lower my prices to adjust to the supply (doing so at a lower profit) or to continue innovating so that I can continue to release new products with their own natural monopolies.

It is more work, yes. But capitalism is not supposed to reward people who sit on their laurels and patents do just that.



Patents are anti-capitalist and anti-free market.



Again, this is flawed. Things do not have intrinsic or inherent values; the value of an object is derived solely from what other people are willing to pay for it. How can you claim that being against patents is anti-capitalist when patents allow someone to artificially manipulate market price and the market itself?
Click to expand...

I know I am going to regret this but we'll take one more stab at the ideas have value approach from the copyright arena ...

let's say I am a single mother with a baby that has difficulty sleeping so I take the baby for walks to a nearby coffee shop where I drink coffee and think of ideas I have for a boy wizard while my baby sleeps ... after many years I finally get my first book published and it is a resounding success ... I then start working on my plans to write 6 more books covering a grand story cycle

should I not have protection of my idea so that no one else can write stories about my boy wizard ... let's call him Perry Hotter for example ... since if everyone is writing stories about him the "value" of the idea is diminished because while I "own" the idea I can limit his adventures to 7 books and 8 movies and a future website I plan to launch ... rather than 20 books written by everybody under the sun ;)

so if the above can and should be protected, why can't another idea ... if the above can't be protected then we are living in a form of collectivism rather than capitalism :p
 
kbrickley said:
I know I am going to regret this but we'll take one more stab at the ideas have value approach from the copyright arena ...
Click to expand...

let's say I am a single mother with a baby that has difficulty sleeping so I take the baby for walks to a nearby coffee shop where I drink coffee and think of ideas I have for a boy wizard while my baby sleeps
Click to expand...

This is an irrelevant appeal to emotion. The fact that you are a single mother does not change anything.

... after many years I finally get my first book published and it is a resounding success ... I then start working on my plans to write 6 more books covering a grand story cycle
Click to expand...

should I not have protection of my idea so that no one else can write stories about my boy wizard ... let's call him Perry Hotter for example ... since if everyone is writing stories about him the "value" of the idea is diminished
Click to expand...

No. Again, read up on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value]subjective theory of value.

because while I "own" the idea I can limit his adventures to 7 books and 8 movies and a future website I plan to launch ... rather than 20 books written by everybody under the sun ;)
Click to expand...

And doing that requires the initiation of force against another person.

so if the above can and should be protected, why can't another idea ... if the above can't be protected then we are living in a form of collectivism rather than capitalism :p
Click to expand...

This is a non sequitur. Collectivism implies collective ownership; ideas cannot be owned either by the individual or by the collective whole.
 
Ultima99 said:
Some people just don't get it.
Click to expand...
I'm actually shocked by how little is understood about both the intent and implementation of patent/copyright laws.

Clearly there are some major issues with changes made to how some patents are granted, and also of the length of copyright protection, but the underlying idea of protection is not the issue.

So yeah, subscribe me to your newsletter. ;)
 
This is an irrelevant appeal to emotion. The fact that you are a single mother does not change anything.
Click to expand...

Other than people know I am talking about J K Rowling :p

No. Again, read up on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value]subjective theory of value.
Click to expand...

Except the value of art is always subjective ... and free trade may be good for consumers but it is not to the benefit of companies or the elite who actually generate value for society ... most people are parasites (they consume and do not create) ... the law was not meant to protect parasites ;)

And doing that requires the initiation of force against another person.
Click to expand...

What force ... you are stealing MY idea of a boy wizard named Perry in a school called Pogwarts with a mentor named Mumblemore ... if you want to break away from that formula and write about a witch named Mary in a school called Bucklethumps with a mentor named Bumblypeg, then that should be permissible but you should not take my idea since you have not right to it

This is a non sequitur. Collectivism implies collective ownership; ideas cannot be owned either by the individual or by the collective whole.
Click to expand...

No, because if you are saying that everyone has equal rights to my idea because no one can own ideas then that is a form of collectivism ... if no one owns anything then by default it is owned by all since it is available to all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top