Wireless Devices Technology; Microsoft’s and Android’s Smartphone Patent War Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET

Wireless Mobile Devices 2

Market directions 3

What is Wireless Communication? 4 Any form of communication that does not require the transmitter and receiver to be in physical contact Electromagnetic wave propagated through free-space  Radar, RF, Microwave, IR, Optical

Electromagnetic Spectrum 5 From: imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov.docs

Wireless Network Technology 6

Characteristics of Wireless Mobile Devices 7 Wireless  Limited bandwidth, high latency  Variable link quality (noise, disconnections, other users)  Heterogeneous air interfaces Mobility:  User and terminal location dynamically changes  Speed of terminal mobility impacts wireless bandwidth Portability  Limited battery capacity, computing and storage  Small dimensions More Signal Processing More Protocol Processing Higher Energy Efficiency

Evolution of Cellular System 8 First generation: Analog – Voice  Analog modulation, cellular phone (AMPS) with manual roaming Second Generation: Digital Voice & Data  Digital modulation Cellular and PCS phones with seamless roaming, integrated paging Third Generation (3G): Digital Multimedia  Unified digital access, voice, data, video music, gaming, m-commerce, sensor etc.

9 Cellular Systems

Smartphone patent war

Smartphone Technology Review – Android Operating system distributed under the Apache license Created by Android, Inc. as part of Google in 2005 Main competitor to iOS

Android – Architecture Based on Linux kernel Application framework largely Java-based Development is open source, meaning the source code is publicly available Programmers welcome to contribute via the software development kit (SDK)

Android – Architecture (cont.)

Android - Devices Android devices include:  Phones  Tablets  Laptops  Ebook readers  Netbooks And even  TVs (planned for Google TV)  Watches  Headphones

Android – Supporters In 2007, Open Handset Alliance revealed itself 84 members  Includes a broad range of original equipment manufacturers (OEM) in the hardware, software, and telecommunications industries, such as  Sony  Dell  HTC  Google  Samsung  LG

Android - Competitors Competing operating systems include:  iOS (Apple)  Windows Phone (Microsoft)  Symbian (Nokia)  Blackberry OS (RIM)  Bada (Samsung)

Android – Smartphone Market Share Source: comScore MobiLens (Dec. 2011)

Android – Benefits Google essentially manages the development and distribution of Android, provides to OEM for free OEM like it because they don’t have to pay licensing fees for use of the OS* Google likes this arrangement because  It controls Android app marketplace  Gets to aggregate users’ different accounts for Google services, such as Gmail and Google+  Means more finely tuned data to target ads *not exactly, as we will see with…

Smartphone Patent War – Microsoft Microsoft has approached smartphone patents from a different angle than many others Things to keep in mind:  Microsoft has many software patents that courts could potentially deem read upon by the Android OS  Suing for patent infringement is  A) costly  B) no way to make friends

Smartphone Patent War – Microsoft Source: Microsoft on the Issues blog

Microsoft’s Approach (Contd.) 24 Microsoft has chosen to pursue de facto licensing arrangements in lieu of litigation Instead of suing manufacturers of Android devices for software infringement, has agreed to not sue OEM so long as they pay royalties to Microsoft Such deals exemplify yet another means companies have for making money from their IP

Microsoft’s Approach (Contd.) 25 Microsoft has litigated:  Motorola  Software patents for  Barnes & Noble  Android OS on Nook ebook reader  Foxconn  Android OS  Inventec  Android OS Microsoft hasn’t litigated nearly as much as some other companies. Why might that be? Microsoft hasn’t litigated nearly as much as some other companies. Why might that be?

Recent History of Corporate Patent Acquisition Google purchased Motorola Mobility for $12.5B ( ~ 17,000 issued and pending) Nortel’s patents purchased by Apple, MS, RIM, ++, for $4.5 B (~ 6,000) Google purchases around 1000 IBM patents for some undisclosed amount (August, 2011) i4i v. Microsoft $240 M (up to SC) Alcatel/Lucent v. Microsoft. – (2007) – $1.5 Billion (settled for $511 M) NTP – Settled with RIM for $612M (plus $53M litigation plus verdict) ‏ Intergraph – over $880M in settlement from patent litigation with Intel, HP and others Eolas v. Microsoft (2003). $506M Jury verdict Immersion v. Sony (2004). $82M jury verdict plus royalties  increased (2007) to $150M  vibration game controller – Microsoft settlement on $26 Freedom Wireless v. BCGI (2005) $128 jury verdict Finisar v. DirectTV (2006). 103M (79+24)Jury verdict plus injunction Tivo v. EchoStar (2006). $74M jury verdict plus injunction Forgent – $100M in licensing revenue

Next week: GOOGLE