-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
____/ bbgruff on Tuesday 12 Jul 2011 22:20 : \____
> On Tuesday 12 July 2011 21:44 Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> The Microsoft bully is back
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | Well, color me surprised that the tyrant known as Microsoft has taken to
>> | doing everything it can to chip away at the competition â no matter what
>> | the cost, what the stakes, or what the perception of the public at
>> | large. Hereâs the deal: Back in April, Microsoft struck a deal with
>> | Samsung wherein Samsung would pay the software giant an undisclosed sum
>> | for every Samsung handset sold â get this â powered by the Android OS.
>> | Thatâs right, MS made itâs usual claims that Android (along with every
>> | company on the planet â regardless of what they produce) infringed upon
>> | patents held by Microsoft. Would they disclose the said infringed
>> | patents? Of course not. After all, itâs been Microsoftâs modus operandi
>> | for decades to obfuscate the real truth for fear of looking like a
>> | spoiled baby taking its toys and going home.
>> | So there the public was (the public that cared about Samsung and
>> | Android) wondering what the sum and the patents were. Well, we now know
>> | that Samsung is to pay a whopping $15.00 per Android-based handset sold.
>> | Letâs do that math:
>> | Samsung sold over 19 million Android-based handsets in the second
>> | quarter of 2011. At 15 smackers a pop, that equals $285 Million Dollars.
>> Windows and Office revenues are falling. Microsoft was caught cooking the
>> books while I was away from COLA (Information Week exposed this).
> This is all getting to be very interesting, isn't it?
> You see, I can't help thinking that somewhere along the line the various
> anti-trust/monopoly commissions are going to become involved.
> The thing that these people (MS etc) are then going to have to explain is
> how the licence for the patents of bits used in a product (an OS) can cost
> *more* than their own OS!
> As I see it, such a situation would be totally unreasonable, and such sums
> would indicate not a "fair return on IP", but rather an anti-competitive
> My understanding is that MS charges roughly $15 for its WP7.
> It seems (from the above) to be demanding $15 from Samsung for Android?
> That's about the same amount!
> But there's more - what is Oracle demanding? $20?
> - and Apple?
> We seem to have here a classic anti-competition Cartel.
> No wonder it hasn't come up in the E.U........ yet! :-)
The E.U. Commission had been stuffed with Microsoft-sympathetic people.
I can give you names...
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----