Microsoft's Steve Ballmer Says Android Isn't Free
It might be free from Google, but it's not free from Microsoft.
Windows Phone 7 is nearly here, and it'll be facing some very stiff competition. As smartphones become increasingly mainstream with the iPhone and Android, Microsoft hopes to offer something that'll pull people away from those camps.
The iPhone will have its loyal fanbase inside Apple's walled garden, while Android caters more to those who like openness and freedom. Android also has the advantage of being free for handset makers to use – something Windows Phone 7 cannot claim the same.
If you ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer though, Android isn't really free. Handset makers can use the Android mobile OS for free, but there's always the chance that Microsoft will come to collect on some patent rights.
HTC learned about this when Microsoft sued it over the use of patents from Android. Rather than going after Google, Microsoft is targeting specific phone makers for the licensing fee.
Ballmer said to the Wall Street Journal, "Android has a patent fee. It's not like Android's free. You do have to license patents. HTC's signed a license with us and you're going to see license fees clearly for Android as well as for Windows."
Microsoft last week went after Motorola for similar reasons. Only time will tell how this will affect the continued adoption of Android.

How hilarious would it be when the win7-phone comes out....if google has a patent or two to stick up MS's ...
(1) Microsoft cannot compete with free. Their fundamental business model is selling software licenses. It is their primary cash-cow! They are willing to use ANY means to gain leverage over competitors; preferably one that makes THEM money.
(2) Linux is free (liberty and most often, beer); but the license its under does not protect it from a flawed patent system.
There is no protection for you, if you happen to accidentally trample on someone's patent. The best you can do is NOT settle; but to ask for what specific patent you have infringed, so you can code around it. (That is legal, as you have a right to know. And you don't have to pay a dime in settlement)...If you had money and time to go through the legal system; the accusing party must prove the patent is legit. If they can't...It'll be invalidated.
(3) Knowing this weakness, Microsoft will "extort" anyone who uses Linux in a commercial setting.
The patents don't have to be legitimately court tested; just the fear of patent infringement is enough! (Some real ones can be used if the other side has a known competent legal team.)
That is, go after folks who sell a Linux-based commercial product like a smartphone (as in the case of Android) OR as a software package (such as Novell, etc)...Interestingly, Red Hat and Canonical told MS to "get lost"; as they recognize this is nothing more than an empty patent threat.
The point of extorting commercial solutions based on Linux with patent threats is to devalue the key characteristic of Linux: Being that its free. This is the focus of Ballmer's strategy.
Such threats also show Microsoft is nothing more than you modern day software mafia...
=> "Say...That's a nice solution. Android, is it? You should be careful with that. Why? Well, these days, Software Patents can be a problem if you use Android. On the other hand, if you sign up with us...You'll be protected from litigation. Why not play it safe, eh? We have Windows Phone 7 coming up, why not sign up to our product?"
As for Ballmer's HTC comment...HTC had no choice because they use both MS and Linux-based products. They were caught in a two-way tag team. Microsoft and Apple were going to sue them. So they settle with MS, such that they can focus on Apple. See the following...
=> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/apple-vs-htc-a-proxy-fight-over-android-could-last-years.ars
=> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/htc-avoids-two-front-patent-war-with-microsoft-pact.ars
The only way to crap on Ballmer's parade is to intentionally create solutions that de-value Microsoft's key/core cash-cows via open source.
But instead of selling software licenses like they do, you sell support contracts and keep your solution completely open source and under GPLv3. (They won't touch you, because they don't like version 3 of the GPL.)
I guess in today's software industry, it goes like this:
=> Those who can; do.
=> Those who can't; sue.
...Thanks to the screwed-up US Patent system.
So HTC knew this and signed the agreement without any fuss and Motorola didn't?
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
How hilarious would it be when the win7-phone comes out....if google has a patent or two to stick up MS's ...
Google is not selling the Android OS, so Micro$oft cannot go after them for ca$h.
We have heard that tune many times from Microsoft (especially if you follow Linux distros).
Microsoft have some many dubious patents, that even to send and receive emails with mobile phone you have to pay Microsoft license fees.
Why is this fat idiot still running Microsoft? Don't Microsoft shareholders pay attention to how this guy has been running this company into the ground?
Yeah, run right into the ground
Microsoft stock is now trading alongside junk bonds
...
WTF have you been smoking?
(1) Microsoft cannot compete with free. Their fundamental business model is selling software licenses. It is their primary cash-cow! They are willing to use ANY means to gain leverage over competitors; preferably one that makes THEM money.
(2) Linux is free (liberty and most often, beer); but the license its under does not protect it from a flawed patent system.
There is no protection for you, if you happen to accidentally trample on someone's patent. The best you can do is NOT settle; but to ask for what specific patent you have infringed, so you can code around it. (That is legal, as you have a right to know. And you don't have to pay a dime in settlement)...If you had money and time to go through the legal system; the accusing party must prove the patent is legit. If they can't...It'll be invalidated.
(3) Knowing this weakness, Microsoft will "extort" anyone who uses Linux in a commercial setting.
The patents don't have to be legitimately court tested; just the fear of patent infringement is enough! (Some real ones can be used if the other side has a known competent legal team.)
That is, go after folks who sell a Linux-based commercial product like a smartphone (as in the case of Android) OR as a software package (such as Novell, etc)...Interestingly, Red Hat and Canonical told MS to "get lost"; as they recognize this is nothing more than an empty patent threat.
The point of extorting commercial solutions based on Linux with patent threats is to devalue the key characteristic of Linux: Being that its free. This is the focus of Ballmer's strategy.
Such threats also show Microsoft is nothing more than you modern day software mafia...
=> "Say...That's a nice solution. Android, is it? You should be careful with that. Why? Well, these days, Software Patents can be a problem if you use Android. On the other hand, if you sign up with us...You'll be protected from litigation. Why not play it safe, eh? We have Windows Phone 7 coming up, why not sign up to our product?"
As for Ballmer's HTC comment...HTC had no choice because they use both MS and Linux-based products. They were caught in a two-way tag team. Microsoft and Apple were going to sue them. So they settle with MS, such that they can focus on Apple. See the following...
=> http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/03/apple-vs-htc-a-proxy-fight-over-android-could-last-years.ars
=> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2010/04/htc-avoids-two-front-patent-war-with-microsoft-pact.ars
The only way to crap on Ballmer's parade is to intentionally create solutions that de-value Microsoft's key/core cash-cows via open source.
But instead of selling software licenses like they do, you sell support contracts and keep your solution completely open source and under GPLv3. (They won't touch you, because they don't like version 3 of the GPL.)
I guess in today's software industry, it goes like this:
=> Those who can; do.
=> Those who can't; sue.
...Thanks to the screwed-up US Patent system.