The thread can be found here if anyone wants to read it in its entirety:
Here's the posts in the order in which they appeared.
Me: The HUGE difference (which will be a big selling point) is MS has an indemnification policy (something Google lacks, and MS loves to make fun of).
GG: I vaguely recall something about Microsoft and indemnification but can't remember any of the details. Do you perhaps have a link to it?
GG: Ah found it. http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Windows/Microsoft-Indemnifies-Its-OEM-Partners-Against-IP-Attacks/ "Microsofts embedded offerings are excluded, given that some OEMs are allowed to modify that code, which complicates the issue of indemnification for those products, he said." ADDED: GG is quoting David Kaefer from Microsoft.
Me: Do a Google search for "microsoft indemnity agreement". It's the first link that appears and it's a .doc file (I was going to embed the link but it's too long).
Note: I just checked and Googling the terms in quotes still bring it up as the first item.
Me: If you read MS's policy I posted about it includes "Mobility and embedded OEM/embedded distributor".
GG: As far as that indemnification part the quote I offered was from Microsoft themselves., David Kaefer, director of business development in Microsoft's Intellectual Property and Licensing group. He says that Microsoft's embedded offerings are excluded, given that some OEMs are allowed to modify that code. Maybe they've changed it in the past couple of years and cover them even if modified or skinned as an Android licensee does.
Me: First off, I told you specifically how to find MS's indemnity document which explains what is and isn't covered (and I mentioned above that mobile and embedded is covered). Yet you ignored that and still continue on with the assumption that embedded isn't covered.
Let me make this really clear for you. Here's an article where they talked to David Kaefer (whom you quoted) and he explains that mobile and embedded are now also covered under MS's indemnity policy. He also goes on to describe they were working on this for some time, but it took longer due to the differences between their regular products and embedded systems. BTW, this article is dated AFTER the one you provided.
Coles Notes: I claimed MS has an indemnification policy that Google doesn't have. GG digs up a really old article from 2004 (without bothering to read the MS policy which I clearly instructed him how to find) to imply mobile isn't covered.
Typical of all his posts on here - trying to sound reasonable while spreading garbage.
Now I'll go back and show the real stupidity - your false claims that Android doesn't infringe any Microsoft IP simply because you're not privy to the settlement details.