Well I am sure that is why they invest so much in software patents.

+1. Bloody M$ and patent wars...

That article doesn't say what the patent infringement is. Knowing patent laws, it's probably a device that you can use to communicate with people.

Will my phone with two cans and string be covered by a Microsoft patent?

Fixed

Apple, Nokia, Kodak and a number of others have been involved in disagreements for some years over methods used for live views, image taking and processes

Apple don't even own the patent on the one click buy on the App Store, it's used under licence from Amazon

Can't believe people and firms expect to get paid for the great ideas they have that have then been bothered to go on and protect.
It's terrible.

It must be, we don't allow it over here.

Well I would suggest that if you have a great idea, make a great product from it, sell that product to lots of people and make tons of money that way. It worked for Trevor Bayliss and James Dyson. As oppose to what's happening here which seems to be have a great idea, get it patented, wait until someone else has the same idea, then wait for them to make a great product, then wait for lots of people to buy it, then tell them that they owe you money.

Call me weird, but I consider approach 'a' to be more virtuous.

Jon

Don't we?
http://www.ipo.gov.uk/



And I'd call approach 'b' 'business sense'.

Good luck applying for a software patent at the IPO - as a general principle of European Union patent law, you can't patent software*.

*The main exception being if your software solves a technical problem in a non-obvious way. If your software addresses a business problem, such as one-click buy, you can't patent that in the European Union.

Very simple, gain patents in any country that aren't such an asshat to people protecting their intellectual rights (If I write an algorithm to perform a task I can't patent it as such, but the mere design of a physical device to do this task without much detail of HOW is enough to gain that patent), wait until they branch into that country then sue them. It has happened before and it happens a lot in the USA

I don't agree it's the "moral" thing to do over working hard to get good products, however businesses rarely stay in business by being moral and good and all things fluffy and nice

HTC got off lightly, because they are one of Microsoft's biggest mobilephone manufacturers.

Looking at the last generation of Android devices, you could get each one with Android, Windows Mobile 6.5 or Windows Phone 7 installed on it. The current dual-core generation of Android devices are, currently, exclusively Android.


They had a portfollio of something 30 - 60 patents covering everything from various touch gestures, displaying remaining battery level, GSM data communications, 3G data communications, WLAN data communications, looking up names in a phonebook...


Not all patents held by Microsoft are purely software related. They also have a lot of hardware patents and interface patents.

I am not a big fan of software patents, but hardware patents are, generally more legitimate. My big problem with software patents is that most are obvious and about 90% of those that are currently being prosecuted have a long history of prior art. There was a menu system patent a couple of years back and my initial thought was "I did that back in the mid 80s!"...


And how many patents do Dyson and Bayliss have? The cyclone technology in Dyson vacuum cleaners is patented, for example. Every other manufacturer who wants to make a similar style of vacuum cleaner would have to negotiate with Dyson for a patent licence.

With HTC, they built the Android devices, using technology they had licensed from Microsoft to make Windows Mobile devices, without extending the licence agreement to cover Android devices, which is where the problems started.

How Patent Registration helped Dyson use Intellectual Property to defenid his unique idea