Google has just commented on today’s news about Samsung agreeing to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for every Android device it sells, claiming that it’s simply Microsoft trying to cover its failures in the mobile world by planning to “extort” money from hardware makers out of spite.
Here’s the Google quote, from TechCrunch:
“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”
And as much as we’d like to agree, we somehow doubt Samsung would hand Microsoft money unless its legal people told them it was 100% necessary.
So it seems Android is as “free” for the hardware makers as the phones it runs on are “free” to us – free for your initial contract, then an annoying monthly fee…
Motorola’s latest flagship dual-core Android monster is a massive, original powerhouse, that’s a big improvement on previous MOTOBLUR mobiles – but still isn’t a total winner.
A slim and glamorous phone from Sony Ericsson, with the sharpest display around. It’s no powerhouse and the screen’s not the biggest out there, but we don’t mind. Because it’s cute.
LG’s first glasses-free 3D phone is a heavy, fat monster, with a clever 3D effect that works rather well. As a smartphone, though, it’s heavy and underwhelming.
A very shiny thing from Sony Ericsson, with a 3.7″ screen and Android 2.3.3 inside. But is it exciting enough to win fans in today’s spec-obsessed market? Can man live on one core alone?
INQ’s Android phone is an interesting “boutique” piece of hardware, packed with unique interface customisations that go far beyond the headline Facebook integration. We like it a lot.
John Drinkwater
/ September 28, 2011‘we somehow doubt Samsung would hand Microsoft money unless its legal people told them it was 100% necessary.’
When approached with pay us _this_ or we’ll take you to court (which could cost _that_), it can make better sense to agree to _this_ even if it weren’t legally required. The assumption that it is a necessary payment is wrong.
Maryou kG
/ September 28, 2011What you fail to understand, it’s not just about smartphones. Nobody can afford to upset Microsoft, not only do they have the entire US congress in their pockets, they almost bottomless funds for marketing and legal funding.
Samsung have plenty of other businesses other than smartphones, they know that Microsoft will make it REALLY hard for Samsung to make laptops with Windows (for example), if they don’t pay up.
I also expect there is more than just money, HTC were also forced to make Windows Phone 7 phones, despite wanting to focus their attention on Android. Microsoft made them change their minds, in exchange for patent lawsuit protection.
In a ideal world, all these dodgy (and illegal) business practices will be investigated, but everyone knows, Microsoft is untouchable in the US. After the Netscape thing, they made sure they owned enough of congress to do what they wish.
Ken
/ September 29, 2011As much as I love android and android devices (I’ve been through about four phones and two tablets), if Android uses patented methods and techniques, someone will have to pay
When compared to Apple who are trying to stop people from being able to buy Android products, Microsoft “merely” make money from it. However, if they turn the screws enough to make it unprofitable, they’ll have done an Apple whilst appearing all innocent. Evil genius.