M$’s Revenue From Android/Linux

Much has been written on the web about M$’s taxation of Android/Linux but M$ mentions little but lawsuits in its recent 10-Q report. In fact, there we read, “there are approximately 60 other patent infringement cases pending against Microsoft.” Nowhere is there a number showing revenue from royalties levied on Android/Linux. While noting the risk of consumers buying gadgets not running M$’s stuff M$ never mentions royalty income from those gadgets. It must not be substantial because hundreds of millions of units running Android/Linux were sold but royalty revenue by M$ was not enough to prevent a decline in revenue by their client division.

If M$’s tax on Android/Linux were even $10, revenue from the “70% of Android/Linux” devices sold in USA would have been around $100 million, barely a blip in the 10-Q. Still, globally, the amount should have been significant but was not registered. Clearly, the taxation of Android/Linux by M$ is not impeding growth of Android/Linux in the least and is not affecting M$’s financial health. If any segment of Android/Linux were affected by royalties it would be the low-end devices, which are having explosive growth.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to M$’s Revenue From Android/Linux

  1. oiaohm says:

    oldman patent laws does come a pain in but when producing produces that cross between countries.

    So are you sure. Robert might want to send something over the boarder.

  2. oldman says:

    “The courts were snowed because they did not understand that a digital computer is just a state of bits, a number upon which operations are done. ”

    Regardless, software patents are the law regardless of what you think Pog. If you think otherwise you are free to petition your legislators to have the law changed.

    As far as US law is concerned, its not your issue. Done like it, Stiff briskets.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “What is being pushed in NZ and Australia is Patents completely removed from software development. Its not like its helping anyone bar patent lawyers.”
    This was at the LCA2012 if you want to go find the video. Yes it a global assault with projects around the world going after different governments.

    Sorry Clarence Moon you are a unresearched idiot as normal.

  4. Clarence Moon wrote, “If I patent a great invention with a sea of gates, flip-flops, and switches, is it OK to do the same thing with a computer instead and ignore the patent?”

    Nope. Maths = Logic = gates/bits is not patentable. That is a well understood principle of law. The courts were snowed because they did not understand that a digital computer is just a state of bits, a number upon which operations are done. The whole mess can be replaced with AND/OR, and NOT. It does not matter how complex you make the maths. It is still maths.

  5. Mr Hill says:

    I agree Clarence Moon about Apple, I said it in jest. I know it is a trademark, I was just making a little point that had nothing to do with patents, but everything to do with the legal mess with business litigation in general. The only winners are lawyers as mentioned earlier. A generic word which is trademarked, so you cant use a generic word within a computing and digital context, even in general bricks and mortar stores and cafés. Steve Jobs (R.I.P. And I don’t mean rest in peace!) and his successors should be labelled the Tim Langdells of hard fruit with no edges. In jest, not too serious.
    At least Microsoft is a unique and stand out word never used before. The best name to use for a software company, from a marketing, brand and trademark point of view, genius.

  6. Mr Hill says:

    Some of the things that are patented are things like print screen, and GUI features that are blatantly ripped off and too obvious. I thought patents were only for ideas that are life changing (like the light bulb or a can opener), not stating the obvious.

    Like Ribbon, MS patented it even though a identical feature was already used on Allaire HomeSite and Lotus eSuite over a decade before.

    Ribbon is basically a glorified tab GUI interface.

    Is Microsoft’s new ribbon UI copied from eSuite’s UI?
    Wed 29 Nov 2006

    Allaire HomeSite Rip off Controversy

    Looks like a case of prior art to me. But MS have the cash to pay off lawyers and the people in charge. Bribery can go a long way in corporate software.

  7. Clarence Moon says:

    “How can you patent code?”

    I doubt that you can patent code per se. what you patent is “a method and apparatus” for doing something useful that incorporates computer software to effect the method. Mr. Pogson does not understand that, I guess, and neither apparently do you.

    Apple has a trademark on their fruit symbol and name, not a patent (or a copyright). That is far different.

  8. Clarence Moon says:

    IBM does not have any impact on the patent that I described, Mr. Oiaohm.

    “What is being pushed in NZ and Australia…”

    I doubt that is true, Mr. Oiaohm, simply because your interpretation, if that is what it even is, has been shown on every occasion to be false and misleading. Even if it were, who would ever care? The United States and Western Europe are where the issues matter and if Australia were a complete patent zoo it would not affect the rest of the world.

  9. Clarence Moon says:

    “Ideas are not patentable.”

    Easy for you to say, Mr. Pogson, but if they are not, then what is patentable? The US Patent and Trademark Office has this to say:

    ” Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.”

    It all starts with an idea, does it not? If I patent a great invention with a sea of gates, flip-flops, and switches, is it OK to do the same thing with a computer instead and ignore the patent?

  10. Mr Hill says:

    How can you patent code? Thats the REAL cancer of general computing, not copyleft licensing. Code is when you think of it is equated numbers when it is executes on a computer. If corporate software company would patent 1+1=2; or any other maths formula like Einstein’s E = mc2, they would do it. Apple did patent the fruit’s name, maybe because one fell on Newton’s head 300 years earlier.

    Thats the thing corporate software does best, stifle any innovation and competition whilst it keeps a monopoly to itself.

  11. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “That is the “improvement” to the device, which is a backup server system, that was “discovered” by the company that now holds the patent rights to the method.”
    This is dream world logic. Most of the time you try to patent something you will find that the patent depends on another patent that you will be forced to license. Results is the big fish with lots of patents gets use of your patent for nothing. Who is the big fish IBM. The are specialist in the process of barbed wiring the patent system so they don’t have to pay on patents very often.

    You would find a example like you gave would run into one of the IBM patents. Also lot of patents exists that have just been dreamed up by patent lawyers and applied for. No real world testing. Vague wording. In the hope they can troll with it in future.

    Yes the patent system use to be good when person had to present there real working invention to the patent office before they were granted a patent.

    Today you are patent lawyer you get wind of someone inventing something you can patent it first and sue that poor suckers ass off. Likely hood the poor sucker will win is very low. So the poor inventor is no longer protected by the patent system.

    Now if the inventor was protected by the patent system I could see some point to it.

    Really patents should not be transferable on paper. To transfer should require physical human. Physical human who invents something should have the right to the invention forever more. To hold a patent you must pay the person who invented it. Kill the company idea. Then the system might work.

    They system is broken and busted. Clarence Moon

    What is being pushed in NZ and Australia is Patents completely removed from software development. Its not like its helping anyone bar patent lawyers.

  12. Clarence Moon wrote, “the idea is a valid basis for a patent, other criteria being met.”

    Wrong again. Ideas are not patentable. The basis has to be something in the real world, like nuts and bolts. Invisible bits won’t cut it.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Dann
    “Doesn’t bringing a suit against someone cost money?”
    Yes it does. FOSS is not poor. Lot of idiots will think FOSS is poor forgetting even with MS windows the service contract is more than the Software. The service companies have the money.

    FOSS is a collective. HTC and Samsung are playing a good game of tag team with Apple at the moment. Barnes and Nobel is fighting Microsoft.

    Don’t think for one moment that these companies are fighting Apple or Microsoft alone. Microsoft biggest problem is just because companies are paying them on patents does not mean they are not funding someone else to attack them who has nothing to lose.

    Patent fight by proxy FOSS is just as able todo as Microsoft if not more so.

    Oldman
    “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work….”
    FOSS is not this. Opera and Cyrus relationship is classic example. Opera needs a email server for selling email services. Paying full time developers is cheaper than paying a MS solution for the size they are. Other companies are in the same boat with Cyrus so the work load is shared.

    Service companies have no reason to sell the software most of the money is in the support contact.

  14. Clarence Moon says:

    You miss the facts here, Mr Pogson, namely that the claim of a patent right for an invention that is implemented by using a computer is, indeed, a discovery and not a mere expression of an idea. The expression itself is covered by copyright, of course, but the idea is a valid basis for a patent, other criteria being met.

    You can use a computer and a program that you wrote to implement some way of producing a useful bit of information or you may use a garbage can full of transistors and diodes to hard wire the same function. It makes no difference to the validity of the patent.

    Take for example a patent that I know about for the purpose of creating a more efficient system for archival storage of data. Many people backup data continuously and fear its loss. In doing so, they purchase a lot of disk storage devices to ensure that they do not run out. It is costly to buy so many hard drives and processors to address them and one company has invented a statistical method to predict when any additional storage may be needed, based on long-term usage by the company operating the server farm.

    If the usage could be accurately predicted into the future, as the patent claims, then the user would benefit from avoiding unnecessary purchases of storage devices that were ultimately never used. That is the “improvement” to the device, which is a backup server system, that was “discovered” by the company that now holds the patent rights to the method.

  15. oldman wrote, “Opinion, not fact.”

    Fact:

    “The Congress shall have power…To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;”

    Software is not discovered. It is written. Copyright is the appropriate protection but you have to show the code… Oops! That doesn’t work for closed-minded people. Too bad. The protection for writings is copyright. Someone else can write code that does the same damned thing without violating copyright.

  16. oldman says:

    ““Either pay or do without!” or sue using competition law. You missed the third option. FOSS is not past using the third as proven in the EU vs MS case.”

    For that to work you have to convince the government that there is some public good that trumps that bad press that comes when a government creates an advantage for the home team. Nobody loved Microsoft, so the EU forcing of the network protocols open went unchallenged. Hopefully he EU will not have to watch another country returning the favor
    .
    “So some places have agreed that FOSS does have a divine right to be above this since its common property.”

    They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work….

    “Instead of bringing the cost to enter a market to $0 allowing competition, we must pay in order to maybe start something? Sounds anti-competitive to me.”

    Nope. All you have to do is clean room reverse engineer around it, or you could try coming up with something better.

    That is competition.

  17. Dann says:

    Doesn’t bringing a suit against someone cost money?

    Instead of bringing the cost to enter a market to $0 allowing competition, we must pay in order to maybe start something? Sounds anti-competitive to me.
    If the subject in question is already produced, then that producer/inventor already has a head start, in R&D as well as introduction to the market.

    All those Android manufacturers are the perfect example of a thriving market, even with the slight Google lock in.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon interesting is there are guys at IBM and HP who file patent applications for free for open source developers to protect the inventions in the open source world they use.

    Shoe string is not right.

    Also the divine right bit one country FOSS already has that. FOSS in that country is treated like a park common to all so patent, taxes…. All don’t apply. So some places have agreed that FOSS does have a divine right to be above this since its common property.

    oldman
    “Either pay or do without!” or sue using competition law. You missed the third option. FOSS is not past using the third as proven in the EU vs MS case.

    Oldman first to file is not about the inventors its how as a patent board can we get rich. So people file stack and stacks of stupid things and they don’t have to vet any invention bit.

  19. oldman says:

    “In fact software patents are all invalid under the constitution and eventually you will be able to relax.”

    Opinion, not fact.

  20. Clarence Moon wrote, “Linux to be done on a shoestring was that patents were ignored during the development and anything that existed as an idea at the time was tossed into the pot. Now some of those chickens are coming home to roost.”

    There were no software patents when GNU/Linux was started. They were an invention of US courts years later. In fact software patents are all invalid under the constitution and eventually you will be able to relax.

    Clarence is spreading FUD.

  21. Clarence Moon says:

    One of the things that allowed Linux to be done on a shoestring was that patents were ignored during the development and anything that existed as an idea at the time was tossed into the pot. Now some of those chickens are coming home to roost.

    In many ways it is hard to justify the granting of a patent for what must have been obvious development steps when the code was first created, but that, after all, is the way that business is done today. If you are going to participate in the business, though, you have to play by the rules or else get the rules changed.

    The FLOSS folk seem to claim some divine right of access and crow about their low costs of doing business, but they are ignoring the high costs of playing by the rules. Something has to give one way or another.

    My suspicion is that companies with patents will continue to collect some of the income generated by companies without patents since changing the rules is too hard to accomplish for anyone. That seems to be par for the course with Android where the user companies that are being sued unless they take fair licenses are healthy enough to pay for them.

    The IT business is not an all skate for free.

  22. ch wrote, “just developing the Linux kernel took more than some months.”

    Yes, and it broke even in a few months. The effort to create a UNIX-like OS from scratch paid off handsomely. Linus and others found it usable within months. That was their objective. They invested and got what they wanted quickly. The original UNIX was done in months by just two men. All the rest is maintenance. Certainly the Linux kernel is high maintenance but it involves the kernel and hundreds of drivers and thousands of devices. From the time some feature/device/driver is conceived until it is working in the kernel is usually a few months. Perhaps they don’t get it right on the first release but usually by the second release it is widely usable.

  23. oldman says:

    “Get over it. Software patents are not about paying programmers. It’s about messing with competition.”

    It would seem Pog, that your sense of entitlement knows no bounds. You are not entitled to the fruits of someone elses labors be they an individual or company.

    If software patents gets in the way of your beloved FOSS, that is too bad.

    Either pay or do without!

  24. ch says:

    “Software can be created in weeks or months.”
    “If software cannot break even in a few months, it has little merit.”

    Well, there is software, and then there is software. E.g. just developing the Linux kernel took more than some months.

    http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000017.html

  25. oldman wrote, “creators have a right to profit from their creations”.

    Get over it. Software patents are not about paying programmers. It’s about messing with competition. No one invents anything in software. It’s all a rehash of stuff people knew about decades ago. Take Oracle v Google, for example. When actually looking at innovation, most of the patents in question were dismissed by USPTO. Likely all would be by a jury of sceptics. With software patents, “inventors” are not even required to produce a working copy. Someone can file a patent application without ever having written any code.

  26. oldman says:

    “The whole idea of software patents is to retard innovation, not to promote it. They are garbage.”

    Fortunately the world realized that creators have a right to profit from their creations. Software patents are they way of protect that intellectual property.

    Who are you Robert Pogson,to dictate how software creators are to profit from their investments in time and effort? The fact remains that software patents are one of the means provided by the government to provide protection for creators of new software. The fact that you may have to pay for using that idea is “stiff briskets” to quote another poster.

  27. Dr Loser wrote, “surely it would be better to hold it up as the way patents ought to work, rather than just throwing all your toys out of the pram and moaning that the entire system should be destroyed?”

    Yes, the world would be better off without software patents. Software can be created in weeks or months. There is no reason on Earth to grant a monopoly to it for years. If software cannot break even in a few months, it has little merit. Being first to market should be reward enough for innovation in software. Look at some of the concepts in software patents. Some were probably conceived in the morning and in code in the afternoon. It takes more effort to file the patent than to invent and implement them. The whole idea of software patents is to retard innovation, not to promote it. They are garbage.

  28. oiaohm says:

    “But I thought that as long as one can document (i.e. notarized engineering note books) that one had the idea first, then even if the copyist beats the “original” inventor to file, the patent office will award the patent to the filer who can prove that they were first.”

    oldman not under first to file laws. Alexander Graham Bell was under first to invent laws.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_to_file_and_first_to_invent Usa did change from first to invent to first to file in 2011.

    Best you can hope with even paper work is that your stuff becomes prior art. So voiding the patent. Due to them already filling a patent on it you cannot file a patent yourself. Since you were not first to file.

    Patent system is even more screwed up.

    Dominate patent law is first to file. That suxs badly.

  29. oldman says:

    “Just see someone else create and beat them to filing. Then you can rip money out of the inventor. Completely bad is the Patent system.”

    But I thought that as long as one can document (i.e. notarized engineering note books) that one had the idea first, then even if the copyist beats the “original” inventor to file, the patent office will award the patent to the filer who can prove that they were first.

    Alexander Graham Bell went through this with the telephone I believe.

  30. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser
    “First you build something that doesn’t exist, creating patents as you go.”

    Problem is lot of places are the first to file so you don’t have to create or build something. Just see someone else create and beat them to filing. Then you can rip money out of the inventor. Completely bad is the Patent system.

  31. Dr Loser says:

    Domain experts, yes.

    Not quantifiable according to the Pogson theory of Mathematics.

  32. Clarence Moon says:

    “So, you create a market, you organize that market, the market matures, and everybody benefits.”

    Bravo for such a succinct framing of the problem Dr. Loser! I think that mass market items like iPads or iPods or iPhones may need some more effective shield from knock-offs that is afforded by simple expertise, but in most other areas, being the “fustest with the mustest” is enough to keep truly competent innovators smiling during their frequent trips to their bank to deposit the fruits of their genius.

    The company that I work for is fairly esoteric in terms of products and has a very small market in terms of number of units sold than what Apple might deal with. We are more on the order of Oracle, perhaps, since we service many of the same customers. Not as big financially, though :-(.

    What I see is that our customers are pretty loyal and will buy our new product if and when it does something for them that the old one did not do. Our business is pretty much adding new gimmicks to the old core with the hope that our customers will think that is enough of a benefit to make them part with some more of their cash.

    In our niche we stay on top because we are the experts that these customers turn to when they need something that works without a hassle and that they can afford to buy now. We do have a lot of patents and we pay the engineers a bonus to work at filing for more, but I don’t think that our customers would buy from a new competitor who had somehow learned our secrets, either from reading a patent (good luck there!) or reverse engineering the product. By the time that they succeeded at that, we would have yet another version out.

    In the software business, customers do not buy from anyone who is not the leader, at least in the niche that the customer lives within.

  33. Dr Loser says:

    @oiaohm:

    “Clarence Moon only one party has to fight. People like you forget MS use to license out patents on SMB protocol. The don’t do so any more samba created a pool containing all those patents by court action.”

    That actually seems to be a perfectly logical and not at all evil way of dealing with the system as it currently exists. (Note that I am not defending the current system. It’s almost as crusty as Linux.)

    First you build something that doesn’t exist, creating patents as you go. Then you license the thing that didn’t exist, using those patents as a basis for negotiation. Finally the whole thing is reverse-engineered (in this case by Apple in two years, rather than the pitiful decades-long FOSS effort), at which point the patents effectively expire.

    So, you create a market, you organize that market, the market matures, and everybody benefits.

    I agree that this is a sadly rare case where patents are concerned, but surely it would be better to hold it up as the way patents ought to work, rather than just throwing all your toys out of the pram and moaning that the entire system should be destroyed?

  34. ch says:

    “royalty revenue by M$ was not enough to prevent a decline in revenue by their client division.”

    You are looking in the wrong place. Page 34 of the report you’ve linked to tells us:

    “Entertainment and Devices Division (“EDD”) develops and markets products and services designed to entertain and connect people. EDD offerings include the Xbox 360 entertainment platform […], Skype, and Windows Phone, including related patent licensing revenue.”

    HTH,
    Ch

  35. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon Microsoft supported the idea of software patents.

    Ok when they where small they were against software patents and said patents were a way to crush the small guy. 1991 bill gates if you dig it out.

    Later in 2000 on you find Microsoft funding lobbyists pushing for software patents.

    Basically if MS would be better off without software patents why would they be lobbing for them so hard.

    If MS is losing money to patent holders it is there own down right fault. So I am not sorry for them.

    Clarence Moon only one party has to fight. People like you forget MS use to license out patents on SMB protocol. The don’t do so any more samba created a pool containing all those patents by court action.

    If you read some of the leaked documents MS has the idea that software patents can stop open source.

  36. Kozmcrae says:

    “If you are just fooling around as many of us are with Linux, no one is going to bother to sue you no matter what you do. ”

    That falls under the definition of “hobbyist”. And we all know the new definition of that word, now don’t we.

  37. Clarence Moon says:

    Well, Dr. Loser, that is precisely the problem. The patent system is a hodge-podge of abstract concepts that have been puffed up to the point of being declared inventions. It is hard to defend the patent litigation since it does seem so arbitrary. Big companies have gone into the mode of just getting as many patents as they can for whatever there may be some use for by someone and then agreeing amongst themselves to just ignore the whole thing.

    That is what makes Oracle vs Google and Apple vs Samsung such an unexpected set of events. Microsoft vs Barnes and Noble is another oddity, although so many others, namely Samsung, HTC, Amazon, Sony, and others have licenses with Microsoft that cover the area.

    Nothing will be settled for a long time to come, I believe, if litigation ensues. Better to let Mr. Pogson and Mr. Oiaohm wax about what they learn on Groklaw and tell each other that Microsoft is a bad guy.

    Microsoft itself would be substantially ahead of the game if there were no patents at all, I think. They have lost many more litigations than they have managed to win. Lack of patents favor the big companies who can then copy any new idea without fear of big damage verdicts.

  38. Dr Loser says:

    @Robert:

    “While noting the risk of consumers buying gadgets not running M$’s stuff M$ never mentions royalty income from those gadgets. It must not be substantial because hundreds of millions of units running Android/Linux were sold but royalty revenue by M$ was not enough to prevent a decline in revenue by their client division.”

    In that case, stop moaning about it.

    It’s either substantial (in which case you are free to pursue your theme of patent law) or it isn’t (in which case you are free to pursue your theme of M$ decline).

    Just pick one and be done with it.

    It is always important, I feel, to be honest with yourself, and to define your enemies properly.

    NotEverybody for anything and whatever objection I wake up with in the morning.

    Seriously, Robert: A M$ tax, or an admission that patent trolling doesn’t work?

    Interesting arguments, either way.

  39. Dr Loser says:

    @Anrew:

    “So those 3 paragraphs would be interpreted:

    “No, you can not know what the infringements are”.

    Correct?”

    If you want to ignore the argument completely, and reduce it to a sub-set of your own choosing, then: yes.

    Logically correct, but a total waste of your time.

  40. Dr Loser says:

    @Andrew:

    “Is there a site where we can obtain a list of patents that Android or Linux is infringing? It would be helpful to eliminate or code around the infringement.”

    I think it’s fair to say that there would be no such link for Linux, which has not attracted significant patent action over the last twenty years.

    Android? Well, you have a very good point here.

    I really wish I was in a position to help, but IANAL.

    There’s a lot of froth in the tech press about Android patent liabilities, but you know what? I have no clue whatsoever (and I’m sure I’m not alone in this) which patents or why would cause Android h/w manufacturers to pay the “Windows tax.” Genuinely. None whatsoever.

    If the “tech press” was actually a “tech press,” complete with actual investigative journalists rather than the collection of sycophantic knee-jerk morons it currently comprises, they you’d have your answer. Possibly even in technical detail.

    It’s not there, and I agree with you. What is wrong with these people?

  41. Dr Loser says:

    @Clarence:

    That is actually a very interesting, and neutral, point.

    You’d have to be insane to spend years researching patents and the like before you’d actually built anything, wouldn’t you?

    So the obvious method is to, um, build something and wait for the patent suits.

    (At this point, weirdly, one way to fame and fortune would be to negotiate with the MegaCorp concerned — let us call them Google or IBM for purely illustrative purposes — and sell your company for tens of millions of dollars. But let’s suppose you don’t go that way.)

    At this point the question is not whether or not the patent is without merit. The question is how much effort it takes to work around it.

    If it’s (say) six man-months work, then who cares, just work around it.

    If not, then it might very well be a patent with merit, no?

  42. Andrew says:

    @Clarence;

    So those 3 paragraphs would be interpreted:

    “No, you can not know what the infringements are”.

    Correct?

  43. Clarence Moon says:

    It is much more dramatic to find out which patents you are infringing when you are actually using them and have some income to go after, Andrew. If you are just fooling around as many of us are with Linux, no one is going to bother to sue you no matter what you do.

    It is a lot like looking for oil. There is no point in drilling where there is nothing but dry holes. If there is a proven reserve, however, akin to the commercial business in Android based phones and tablets, then you are likely to strike it rich if you discover some infringement.

    It is just a business, the same as many others. You have to go where the money is to be found.

  44. Clarence Moon says:

    Corporations account for much of their “found” money, such as royalties on Android phone licenses, as “Other Income”, Mr. Pogson. That is done to distinguish that sort of money from line of business operations that more accurately reflect the company’s continued success.

    For Microsoft in the past quarter, that other income was $245 million dollars. Not all of it or even most of it was possibly from Android phone royalties and there may is a breakdown that shows $50 million to be truly “other”, namely not investment income or interest expenses, etc..

    There is also a category of operations income labeled “Unallocated and other” that amounted to some $101 million in that same quarter. I suppose that it could be argued that the engineering cost investments that resulted in the patents that are producing the royalty income validate listing that revenue as operations income.

    One or the other, if not both, is where you will find your answer.

  45. Andrew says:

    Is there a site where we can obtain a list of patents that Android or Linux is infringing? It would be helpful to eliminate or code around the infringement.

  46. Hanson says:

    Pog, you will be glad to hear that US SEC decided to introduce a new category in the 10-Q named “Android Extortion Money”. That’s how important you are to them.

    The truth is: the money extorted from Android device manufacturers was used to finance MegaUpload. Kim Schmitz is really Steve Ballmer in a fat suit. Believe me, he had me fooled there for a minute!

Leave a Reply