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).
This is from Microsoft. However, it's a little hard to follow at times. There have been many articles online about the practical implications of this policy. Most recently relating to Android and WebM (two products that Google does not indemnify users of, yet still claims are not patent encumbered). MS challenged Google on the WebM front recently stating "If Google is confident WebM is free from patent encumbrances, then they should have no problems indemnifying users of WebM".
Here's a perfect example, and so relevant:
MS started going after Android OEMs because Android uses MS IP. Google sat back and did nothing (except whine and complain that MS was basically "extorting" money from these OEMs). MS has since settled with over 20 Android OEMs (including all the big names like Samsung) and they now pay MS royalties for any device shipped with Android.
If Google had the same indemnification policy that MS does, then Google would have taken a license from MS directly, avoiding the need for MS to go after all the OEMs.
What IP has Microsoft identified as being infringed by Android? Google says no Microsoft patents are infringed. AFAIK Microsoft has never offered any proof contrary to that. Not saying it might not be a pragmatic move to take a license anyway but I've not ever seen anything from Microsoft as to what that licensing buys them that they don't already own. Do you really think if Android itself was the problem that Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
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.. Doesn't really matter all that much to me personally in any event and I doubt it will sway manufacturers away from Android and towards Windows, at least not anytime soon. I was simply curious what the MS indemnification covered and when it activated. Thanks for your link.
The tides ebb and flow and someday MS may be back on top again in mobile with Apple and Google looking up at them. That won't be tomorrow despite Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software,
I watched a couple demos and I must say I'm very impressed, especially with the natural quality of the voice. It's sure come a long way from Microsoft Sam.
Also it's as much a copy of Siri as the Empire Stat Building is of the Eiffel Tower. A voice assistant is a method of input and everyone's entitled to make their own. Add to that the fact that it doesn't look remotely like Siri, and you realize that argument is futile.
As for the name, Halo has made appr. $50M in sales, and even people who haven't played the game have at least heard of it, so using a name from an extremely popular game is actually a very good idea.
Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
No. Microsoft would not be able to make any money off Google because Google does not directly make any money off Android.
Microsoft simply repeated their Linux strategy. They went against the vendors (Suse, and IBM during the Linux days). They did the same thing with Android, and are getting paid by nearly all Android vendors. They never went against the Linux Foundation.
No. Microsoft would not be able to make any money off Google because Google does not directly make any money off Android.
Microsoft simply repeated their Linux strategy. They went against the vendors (Suse, and IBM during the Linux days). They did the same thing with Android, and are getting paid by nearly all Android vendors.
What do you base the "can't get any money from Google" on? Of course you can. It's not a requirement that a company profit from their infringement to be ordered to pay damages to the IP holder. It certainly didn't stop the smaller and lesser-armed Oracle.
I owned a 'Holden Cortina' once, I wonder if it is similar to a 'Cortana'?
Seriously, Microsoft is either chained in the old world, trying to be everything to everyone, or stuck copying others work, and charging a MINT for the privilege of using their stolen software. Do they really have a future ? - Not now, I don't think so, its going to be a slow decline to death. Nothing to see here.....throw to crickets.
Siri is a Clippy ripoff, the latter was a descendant of Microsoft Bob. Microsoft was miles ahead of Apple regarding the development of a personal assistant.
What IP has Microsoft identified as being infringed by Android? Google says no Microsoft patents are infringed. AFAIK Microsoft has never offered any proof contrary to that. Not saying it might not be a pragmatic move to take a license anyway but I've not ever seen anything from Microsoft as to what that licensing buys them that they don't already own. Do you really think if Android itself was the problem that Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
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.. Doesn't really matter all that much to me personally in any event and I doubt it will sway manufacturers away from Android and towards Windows, at least not anytime soon. I was simply curious what the MS indemnification covered and when it activated. Thanks for your link.
The tides ebb and flow and someday MS may be back on top again in mobile with Apple and Google looking up at them. That won't be tomorrow despite Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software,
You are correct in saying we have never seen anything from Microsoft about the patents that Android violates. And Microsoft have a long & inglorious history of strong arming third parties into submission. It may well be pragmatic for phone vendors to take a license. We simply don't know the real story, do we?
Going after Google won't work - they don't produce a saleable product with Android-they give it away- you have to go after the manufacturer who is selling the actual product. Larry Ellison went after Google as favour to Steve Jobs.
Regarding your comment about Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software - no sarcasm tag, so I assume you are being serious. That's all good, but openly acknowledging that vendors inspire each other logically leads to the conclusion that Google's Android was inspired by Apple's iOS. You may want to tread carefully there.
You are correct in saying we have never seen anything from Microsoft about the patents that Android violates. And Microsoft have a long & inglorious history of strong arming third parties into submission. It may well be pragmatic for phone vendors to take a license. We simply don't know the real story, do we?
Going after Google won't work - they don't produce a saleable product with Android-they give it away- you have to go after the manufacturer who is selling the actual product. Larry Ellison went after Google as favour to Steve Jobs.
Regarding your comment about Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software - no sarcasm tag, so I assume you are being serious. That's all good, but openly acknowledging that vendors inspire each other logically leads to the conclusion that Google's Android was inspired by Apple's iOS. You may want to tread carefully there.
Being inspired by a painting, sound, location, person, activity or product happens millions of times a day, every day. No tech is immune to it, and following logic they all find inspiration from outside of themselves. No need to tread carefully, Embrace it.
What IP has Microsoft identified as being infringed by Android? Google says no Microsoft patents are infringed. AFAIK Microsoft has never offered any proof contrary to that. Not saying it might not be a pragmatic move to take a license anyway but I've not ever seen anything from Microsoft as to what that licensing buys them that they don't already own. Do you really think if Android itself was the problem that Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
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.. Doesn't really matter all that much to me personally in any event and I doubt it will sway manufacturers away from Android and towards Windows, at least not anytime soon. I was simply curious what the MS indemnification covered and when it activated. Thanks for your link.
The tides ebb and flow and someday MS may be back on top again in mobile with Apple and Google looking up at them. That won't be tomorrow despite Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software,
You've got to be kidding me. Are you that dense, or are you simply trolling?
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.
What MS IP do they infringe? Again, are you that dense? It's a well-known fact that MS is getting a license fee from virtually all Android handset vendors. MS has a NDA with each of them which is why we don't know the patents involved or the fees agreed to (though many have speculated about both and seem to think $15 per device is what MS makes).
In fact, there are so many articles about Android vendors paying MS royalties for each device sold, I'm quite frankly completely amazed you could make such a stupid comment, as if it's not actually occurring. If you you want to find out for yourself, just do a search for "microsoft android licensing brad smith" where Brad Smith is the lawyer for Microsoft who handles the deals. He has numerous blog posts about all the companies they've signed up and is quite specific about how the deal is arranged (that MS gets a royalty for each Android device that infringes MS IP). The only thing he doesn't explain is the patents or the fees.
This is how large Microsoft thinks people ACTUALLY WANT THEIR PHONES TO BE.
Also, is it the voice actress from the series? Seems pointless if it isn’t.
What do you mean? Current Windows phones are covering range from 4" to 6". If any company takes for granted what they think phone size should be, it has to be Apple.
There is info that the same game Cortana's voice actress Jen Taylor will be the voice of phone Cortana, but I haven't seen official confirmation (or denial) yet.
I'm sorry but I'm just not a fan of the Windows Phone UI. Too much black & white and too much bold and different text sizes. Also I'm not a fan of all lowercase words. The new Spotify app UI on iOS 7 is really nice because it blends black and white with some color as well as the blurring effect that's predominant in iOS 7. It's a nice mix and it's the right font size so you don't feel like you're being shouted at. I'm hoping Apple introduces a dark theme or at least tones down the white a bit. But please don't follow windows phone 8!
You've got to be kidding me. Are you that dense, or are you simply trolling?
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(which means they weren't) 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.
What MS IP do they infringe? (Yes, what does Android infringe?)[/I) ]Again, are you that dense? It's a well-known fact that MS is getting a license fee from virtually all Android handset vendors. MS has a NDA with each of them which is why we don't know the patents involved or the fees agreed to (though many have speculated about both and seem to think $15 per device is what MS makes).
In fact, there are so many articles about Android vendors paying MS royalties for each device sold, I'm quite frankly completely amazed you could make such a stupid comment, as if it's not actually occurring. If you you want to find out for yourself, just do a search for "microsoft android licensing brad smith" where Brad Smith is the lawyer for Microsoft who handles the deals. He has numerous blog posts about all the companies they've signed up and is quite specific about how the deal is arranged (that MS gets a royalty for each Android device that infringes MS IP). The only thing he doesn't explain is the patents or the fees.
Take it down a notch Eric. I specifically commented that perhaps MS had changed their indemnification policy since Kaefer had made the original statement I linked. You've found another quote where they say they have. Thar's nice. Then you jump to throwing more personal insults because you think I and everyone else should believe that paying royalties is proof of Android patent infringement. Sure it is Eric. :rolleyes: If infringement is so blatant and obvious then explain why MS would hide the patents involved. As I recall you consider refusing to disclose the patents being infringed as a sign of patent troll. Right? Yeah there's perhaps some stupid comments being made, but I don't think it's by me.
This is how large Microsoft thinks people ACTUALLY WANT THEIR PHONES TO BE. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
...Yeah, why not? At least they don't force people into one phone size like Apple does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Also, is it the voice actress from the series? Seems pointless if it isn’t.
It hasn't been confirmed yet but it sure sounds like it.
EDIT: Yes it has, never mind. Jen Taylor confirmed that her voice is being used for Cortana, but only in part. The phrases she hasn't provided are generated by MS TTS, but she is still recording and as the Beta progresses more of her voice will be used.
Re name... I'm Playstation person when it comes to consoles, but I like the name. It sounds a bit exotic, a lot feminine, and if I may say, a little bit sexy without feeling cheap. Good name for AI with female "personality". Not that Siri isn't good name as well, I just like more how "Cortana" sounds. Rumour is that voice actress who voiced Cortana in games will voice her in this app, and I think this is nice - she does have great voice and the whole concept warms my gamer's heart a little bit.
The only thing is, there should be "Cortan" male voice/personality for female users - well, everyone who would prefer male personal assistant in general.[/quote]
Is not a bad name. The only thing i dont like id that is sounds like "cortina" which is spanish for curtain. And "cortan" literally translate to "cutting" but they sound good ????
"Actually MS is implying that if you have a program on you PC it will also work on the phone or tablet as well"
Close. The catch with this new feature is that yes, you can use any language, but they have to be Windows RunTime applications, NOT Win32 apps(though I believe they are working on an integration feature like such for another update).
Comments
What IP has Microsoft identified as being infringed by Android? Google says no Microsoft patents are infringed. AFAIK Microsoft has never offered any proof contrary to that. Not saying it might not be a pragmatic move to take a license anyway but I've not ever seen anything from Microsoft as to what that licensing buys them that they don't already own. Do you really think if Android itself was the problem that Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
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.. Doesn't really matter all that much to me personally in any event and I doubt it will sway manufacturers away from Android and towards Windows, at least not anytime soon. I was simply curious what the MS indemnification covered and when it activated. Thanks for your link.
The tides ebb and flow and someday MS may be back on top again in mobile with Apple and Google looking up at them. That won't be tomorrow despite Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software,
I watched a couple demos and I must say I'm very impressed, especially with the natural quality of the voice. It's sure come a long way from Microsoft Sam.
Also it's as much a copy of Siri as the Empire Stat Building is of the Eiffel Tower. A voice assistant is a method of input and everyone's entitled to make their own. Add to that the fact that it doesn't look remotely like Siri, and you realize that argument is futile.
As for the name, Halo has made appr. $50M in sales, and even people who haven't played the game have at least heard of it, so using a name from an extremely popular game is actually a very good idea.
Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
No. Microsoft would not be able to make any money off Google because Google does not directly make any money off Android.
Microsoft simply repeated their Linux strategy. They went against the vendors (Suse, and IBM during the Linux days). They did the same thing with Android, and are getting paid by nearly all Android vendors. They never went against the Linux Foundation.
I owned a 'Holden Cortina' once, I wonder if it is similar to a 'Cortana'?
Seriously, Microsoft is either chained in the old world, trying to be everything to everyone, or stuck copying others work, and charging a MINT for the privilege of using their stolen software. Do they really have a future ? - Not now, I don't think so, its going to be a slow decline to death. Nothing to see here.....throw to crickets.
The copy machine is alive and well in Redmond
Nonsense.
Siri is a Clippy ripoff, the latter was a descendant of Microsoft Bob. Microsoft was miles ahead of Apple regarding the development of a personal assistant.
What IP has Microsoft identified as being infringed by Android? Google says no Microsoft patents are infringed. AFAIK Microsoft has never offered any proof contrary to that. Not saying it might not be a pragmatic move to take a license anyway but I've not ever seen anything from Microsoft as to what that licensing buys them that they don't already own. Do you really think if Android itself was the problem that Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
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.. Doesn't really matter all that much to me personally in any event and I doubt it will sway manufacturers away from Android and towards Windows, at least not anytime soon. I was simply curious what the MS indemnification covered and when it activated. Thanks for your link.
The tides ebb and flow and someday MS may be back on top again in mobile with Apple and Google looking up at them. That won't be tomorrow despite Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software,
You are correct in saying we have never seen anything from Microsoft about the patents that Android violates. And Microsoft have a long & inglorious history of strong arming third parties into submission. It may well be pragmatic for phone vendors to take a license. We simply don't know the real story, do we?
Going after Google won't work - they don't produce a saleable product with Android-they give it away- you have to go after the manufacturer who is selling the actual product. Larry Ellison went after Google as favour to Steve Jobs.
Regarding your comment about Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software - no sarcasm tag, so I assume you are being serious. That's all good, but openly acknowledging that vendors inspire each other logically leads to the conclusion that Google's Android was inspired by Apple's iOS. You may want to tread carefully there.
This is how large Microsoft thinks people ACTUALLY WANT THEIR PHONES TO BE.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Also, is it the voice actress from the series? Seems pointless if it isn’t.
Being inspired by a painting, sound, location, person, activity or product happens millions of times a day, every day. No tech is immune to it, and following logic they all find inspiration from outside of themselves. No need to tread carefully, Embrace it.
What IP has Microsoft identified as being infringed by Android? Google says no Microsoft patents are infringed. AFAIK Microsoft has never offered any proof contrary to that. Not saying it might not be a pragmatic move to take a license anyway but I've not ever seen anything from Microsoft as to what that licensing buys them that they don't already own. Do you really think if Android itself was the problem that Microsoft wouldn't go after Google directly just as Oracle did, particularly with the pressure they feel from Google products?
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.. Doesn't really matter all that much to me personally in any event and I doubt it will sway manufacturers away from Android and towards Windows, at least not anytime soon. I was simply curious what the MS indemnification covered and when it activated. Thanks for your link.
The tides ebb and flow and someday MS may be back on top again in mobile with Apple and Google looking up at them. That won't be tomorrow despite Microsoft's Google-inspired free OEM software,
You've got to be kidding me. Are you that dense, or are you simply trolling?
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.
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3584181
What MS IP do they infringe? Again, are you that dense? It's a well-known fact that MS is getting a license fee from virtually all Android handset vendors. MS has a NDA with each of them which is why we don't know the patents involved or the fees agreed to (though many have speculated about both and seem to think $15 per device is what MS makes).
In fact, there are so many articles about Android vendors paying MS royalties for each device sold, I'm quite frankly completely amazed you could make such a stupid comment, as if it's not actually occurring. If you you want to find out for yourself, just do a search for "microsoft android licensing brad smith" where Brad Smith is the lawyer for Microsoft who handles the deals. He has numerous blog posts about all the companies they've signed up and is quite specific about how the deal is arranged (that MS gets a royalty for each Android device that infringes MS IP). The only thing he doesn't explain is the patents or the fees.
What do you mean? Current Windows phones are covering range from 4" to 6". If any company takes for granted what they think phone size should be, it has to be Apple.
There is info that the same game Cortana's voice actress Jen Taylor will be the voice of phone Cortana, but I haven't seen official confirmation (or denial) yet.
[IMG]http://i59.tinypic.com/33autxu.jpg[/IMG]
Take it down a notch Eric. I specifically commented that perhaps MS had changed their indemnification policy since Kaefer had made the original statement I linked. You've found another quote where they say they have. Thar's nice. Then you jump to throwing more personal insults because you think I and everyone else should believe that paying royalties is proof of Android patent infringement. Sure it is Eric. :rolleyes: If infringement is so blatant and obvious then explain why MS would hide the patents involved. As I recall you consider refusing to disclose the patents being infringed as a sign of patent troll. Right? Yeah there's perhaps some stupid comments being made, but I don't think it's by me.
This is how large Microsoft thinks people ACTUALLY WANT THEIR PHONES TO BE.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
...Yeah, why not? At least they don't force people into one phone size like Apple does.
Also, is it the voice actress from the series? Seems pointless if it isn’t.
It hasn't been confirmed yet but it sure sounds like it.
EDIT: Yes it has, never mind. Jen Taylor confirmed that her voice is being used for Cortana, but only in part. The phrases she hasn't provided are generated by MS TTS, but she is still recording and as the Beta progresses more of her voice will be used.
The only thing is, there should be "Cortan" male voice/personality for female users - well, everyone who would prefer male personal assistant in general.[/quote]
Is not a bad name. The only thing i dont like id that is sounds like "cortina" which is spanish for curtain. And "cortan" literally translate to "cutting" but they sound good ????
Close. The catch with this new feature is that yes, you can use any language, but they have to be Windows RunTime applications, NOT Win32 apps(though I believe they are working on an integration feature like such for another update).
What an ugly name. They must be thinking that their target customer base are all Halo fans.
It's far better than something like Windows Voice-activated Personal Assistant.
'Cortana' sounds like a type of pasta to me. Or maybe a type of dance.
As a name, it strikes me as rather formal-sounding, and not very warm.
(If you named your daughter Cortana, what would her nickname be? How would you shorten/familiarize it?)
Welcome, Microsoft, to 2011! Hopefully Cortana won't have millions of people looking for the premiere of Terra Nova.