|
I'm a human being, not a lawyer, so I don't pretend to really understand any of this. But it seems to me this is all business as usual in the patent wars:
1. Get a patent; make it as broad as you can get away with (the USPTO is generally very helpful with this).
2. Assert your patents often and vigorously; make BIG claims -- much broader than the actual patent justifies.
It's just the way lawyers say, "Hello".
After all the good mornings have been said, the negotiating begins, terms are struck, agreements signed. Patent SOP. These things are almost always done and dusted in back rooms without ever seeing daylight.
The only difference this time is B&N didn't roll (as has already been pointed out, not having a suitable patent arsenal to counter-assert, this was probably its only option), though I expect "equitable terms" will still be reached before the case sees a jury. Though by framing it in terms of "Microsoft vs. Android", B&N has guaranteed a level of media exposure that MS is probably not entirely comfortable with, given its own besmirched history of anti-competitive behavior.
I'm not generally one to defend Microsoft, but I suspect in this case it really is just doing what every other company with a patent arsenal has traditionally done. All we've seen so far is the lawyering-up phase. This thing won't start getting interesting until it lands in front of a judge.
There has been a seismic shift in patent issues in the US over the past few years, as the USSC has moved to reign in patent abuse, thereby potentially shredding formerly lucrative patent portfolios. (Interestingly, one of those cases involved Microsoft defending against an AT&T infringement claim.) You gotta think nobody -- even Microsoft -- really knows for sure where their patents stand.
|