But what boggles my mind is that if all of these companys have enough patents on their software to kill their competitors software alternative, how did it get that way?…

My reasoning behind the question is that in the USA the way the patent system works is first to create not first to file. So wouldn’t that mean that the first mobile OS has the right to all of these patents?

Well I’m going to contradict myself once again here. No, it doesn’t mean the first OS has the right to it all, because different features were implemented at different times.

So, basically, I completely agree with you, but, the patent system in the US is such a mess, and its all thanks to those damn software patents…

I agree that it’s nice of them to talk about it and not sue, though. Microsoft just has a really bad history along these lines… :( I mean, I have a lot of stock in Microsoft, but some things are just beyond the pale.

I also agree with his (or Microsoft’s) view on patent protection. So long as the patents are useful and not obvious (two of quite a few criteria to be granted a patent) they should be protected regardless of the company.

What I really want to know is how old these patents are, I really want to know when/if Google will ever be able to use them in the mobile space. If the patents still have a long way to go to expiration, and Microsoft could stop Google or an OEM from using them, then the mobile space may have evolved too much by then.

I’m also glad Microsoft is discussing the patents with other companies rather than just outright suing. (even though they have every right to.)

Hopefully Microsoft will release more info regarding this patent dispute soon.

Nokia… Pay Apple for its “leadership role in the smartphone space”? – fantastic comedic value here.

I’m not in any way diminishing the fact that Apple has (after a fashion) innovated in certain aspects of the phones they produce, but they’re building a lot on the hard work Nokia in particular have done. Nokia have a colossal IP portfolio and while their products aren’t really as high end as they could be any more, they’ve still got enough cash to be a big pain for Apple.

But this whole attitude towards innovation shits me. Patents are supposed to encourage innovation, not be used as a crude weapon to selectively license competitors out of the cheapest or most desirable technology. Absurd.

Back to Nokia again though, Apple is stomping all over a bunch of patents they have related to the GSM and wifi radio in the phone. Which is, some might say, pretty essential to it being a phone really and all of Apple’s nice software doesn’t function in this context, without access to the technology locked up in those patents.

This is an interesting if ambiguous statement. Is the concern about those Android manufacturers using infringing technology built on licensed Google technology or about infringing technology in Android?

The recent Microsoft/HTC licensing deal would suggest the former since HTC would hardly purchase a license to protect infringing Google technology.

It would appear the Google isn’t directly threatened by Microsoft’s recent actions. What may concern Google is if code built on Android was to become suddenly unavailable. Would a HTC Android phone be less desirable without Sense?

I think that is a very sharp statement from Microsoft re the ‘smartphone stack’ — which, in effect, validates Apple’s app strategy.

However, I still believe that Microsoft’s DNA — packaged desktop software — make it a dinosaur. Therefore I expect them to become quite the patent lawsuit troll.