Microsoft applies for patent on multi-OS smartphone

[LAwLz]

I have the Moto G, and I can't find a single Android phone that is perfectly smoothly everywhere.

Not even the iPhone is perfectly smooth EVERYWHERE. I really doubt WP is either. Or maybe it is, but that's because there are no apps for it so you can't do anything even slightly demanding on it. If you mean it's not smooth in the OS navigation (which is what your claim was with WP) then what are you smoking? Every review I have said, and my personal experience disagrees with you.

 

 

The only thing that Android has, is customizability, and apps.

Kind of like how Windows on desktops only have "apps" going for it as well. You kind of forgot about marketshare (which is a benefit) and hardware support as well.

There are plenty of other ways Android (and/or iOS) is better by the way. Just small things which makes it a pain in the ass to use (no static IP except on a few phones, can't charge while it's turned off, terrible support in big parts of the world, alarms don't go off while it's turned off, lack of manual network settings such as static IP and the list goes on).

 

 

To add, In India, and many third world countries, Windows Phone is actually booming, with a growing 12% market share in many regions, and apparently ~13.5 % in Europe. So it is going up, snail paste, but going up.

And overall it doesn't even have 3% marketshare... It's kind of sad to see really. To quote IDC's report from February this year, "Windows Phone had the smallest year-over-year increase among the leading operating systems growing just 4.2%, well below the overall market."

In their report you can actually see that the global marketshare for Windows Phone went down between 2013 and 2014 (from 3.3% to 2.7%).

Microsoft needs a miracle to save WP.

[Sharp_3yE]

Not a fan that they patented it, but I ma against all software patents so whatever.

Might be cool but I am fairly sure it has been done before. I saw someone earlier in the thread brought up NOOB for the Raspberry Pi which, as far as I can tell, works exactly like the patent describes (and was released before Microsoft filed for this patent).

Potentially more options for consumers is nice though and I will gladly welcome more flexibility in terms of OSes to run on my phone/tablet.

Software is such an easy thing to copy. If you spend hours, weeks, months, years making a software program and then someone just copies it and sells it as their own, how would ANYONE who is invested in developing software make money? THEY WOULDN'T! That's why patents are very important. It is needed for people to actually make money on their investment. Sure, the system can be changed but patents are needed. Yes, patents have also gotten in the way of others products but the answer is NOT having no patents.

 

 This is the NOOBS set up page. Yes, it offers multiple OS's to install on a Raspberry Pi. This, however is not for a phone. There have been other patents for this kind of stuff as well.

 

I agree that more options would be amazing for people. I hope this implemented into every phone eventually. We would then shop for the hardware and not so much the software at that point.

[LAwLz]

Software is such an easy thing to copy. If you spend hours, weeks, months, years making a software program and then someone just copies it and sells it as their own, how would ANYONE who is invested in developing software make money? THEY WOULDN'T! That's why patents are very important. It is needed for people to actually make money on their investment. Sure, the system can be changed but patents are needed. Yes, patents have also gotten in the way of others products but the answer is NOT having no patents.

Software patents are not needed. We have copyright and the ability to make your program closed source. The problem with software patents is that they patent the result instead of the implementation.

The implementation of software is the code, but the software patent defines the result.

 

If you spent hours, weeks, months or years making a piece of software then just make it closed source and nobody will be able to copy your work. They can do similar things but if it was such a hard thing to do that it took years to develop then they can't just rip you off like that. Just look at some of the functions in Photoshop. As far as I know, Adobe has not filed a patent for their content-aware filter, and yet nobody has been able to copy it. Why? Because it's extremely difficult to make (requires lots and lots of work) and as long as Adobe don't give the source code away, anyone who wants to copy them will have to put in as much work as they did.

 

 

Patents are needed for things which are easy to analyze and copy. Something like ReadeREST. Anyone can figure out how it works by just looking at it. Therefore it needs protection.

Can you figure out the source code of a program just by looking at it? No? Then you don't need to patent it.

 

 

 

 

This is the NOOBS set up page. Yes, it offers multiple OS's to install on a Raspberry Pi. This, however is not for a phone. There have been other patents for this kind of stuff as well.

<image>

 

I agree that more options would be amazing for people. I hope this implemented into every phone eventually. We would then shop for the hardware and not so much the software at that point.

1) You shouldn't be able to patent "like that thing we have on desktops, but on a phone instead". That's crazy.

2) Microsoft's patent don't specify phones. Like ekpyrosis pointed out, this is what the patent specifies:

 

[0023] From one perspective device 1002 can be thought of as a computer. Examples of computers or devices can include traditional computing devices, such as personal computers, desktop computers, notebook computers, cell phones, smart phones, personal digital assistants, pad type computers, digital whiteboards, cameras, wearable devices, such as smart glasses, or any of a myriad of ever-evolving or yet to be developed types of computing devices.

So the patent will cover NOOB as well. That means that if Microsoft gets granted this patent, they could actually sue the developers of NOOB even though they developed NOOB before Microsoft even filed the patent. I really hope the patent gets rejected for prior art.

[Sharp_3yE]

Software patents are not needed. We have copyright and the ability to make your program closed source. The problem with software patents is that they patent the result instead of the implementation.

The implementation of software is the code, but the software patent defines the result.

 

If you spent hours, weeks, months or years making a piece of software then just make it closed source and nobody will be able to copy your work. They can do similar things but if it was such a hard thing to do that it took years to develop then they can't just rip you off like that. Just look at some of the functions in Photoshop. As far as I know, Adobe has not filed a patent for their content-aware filter, and yet nobody has been able to copy it. Why? Because it's extremely difficult to make (requires lots and lots of work) and as long as Adobe don't give the source code away, anyone who wants to copy them will have to put in as much work as they did.

 

 

Patents are needed for things which are easy to analyze and copy. Something like ReadeREST. Anyone can figure out how it works by just looking at it. Therefore it needs protection.

Can you figure out the source code of a program just by looking at it? No? Then you don't need to patent it.

Edit: Sorry for being wrong on copyright and patent debacle about when something is applicable.

 

Copyright: 1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. (Oxford Dictionary)

2. a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution, applicable to certain forms of creative work. (Wikipedia)

 

Patent: 1. a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. (Oxford Dictionary)

2. A set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process (Wikipedia)

 

They are used for two totally different purposes. Patents are for inventions and copyright is for creative work such as a song. So, patents are needed for products or processes.

 

1) You shouldn't be able to patent "like that thing we have on desktops, but on a phone instead". That's crazy.

2) Microsoft's patent don't specify phones. Like ekpyrosis pointed out, this is what the patent specifies:

 

So the patent will cover NOOB as well. That means that if Microsoft gets granted this patent, they could actually sue the developers of NOOB even though they developed NOOB before Microsoft even filed the patent. I really hope the patent gets rejected for prior art.

No, that is not what is happening. Microsoft is patenting a specific process that happens on a phone. There are lots of patents of dual booting processes. They are all different processes though. This one pertains to phones though. No, it wont cover NOOB because it uses a different process.

[LAwLz]

No, you're wrong.

Copyright: 1. the exclusive legal right, given to an originator or an assignee to print, publish, perform, film, or record literary, artistic, or musical material, and to authorize others to do the same. (Oxford Dictionary)

2. a legal right created by the law of a country that grants the creator of an original work exclusive rights for its use and distribution, applicable to certain forms of creative work. (Wikipedia)

Patent: 1. a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, especially the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. (Oxford Dictionary)

2. A set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process (Wikipedia)

They are used for two totally different purposes. Patents are for inventions and copyright is for creative work such as a song. So, patents are needed for products or processes.

Did you not read my post? You either did not read it or did not understand it. Software patents are not needed because developers have things such as making it closed source to protect their secrets.

Patents are only needed when things are easy to copy.

Not sure why you are trying to argue that copyright and patents are two different things because I never said they were the same.

If software patents were let's say 5 years and they had to make it open source then I'd be okay with it. For physical products everything is "open source" which is why they need the patents. But since closed source software can't be copied we don't need the parents.

No, that is not what is happening. Microsoft is patenting a specific process that happens on a phone. There are lots of patents of dual booting processes. They are all different processes though. This one pertains to phones though. No, it wont cover NOOB because it uses a different process.

Please explain to me how this is different from NOOB. also you might have missed it but Microsoft specifically clarifies that it is not just for phones, it can be any computer, in the patent.

[Sharp_3yE]

Software patents are not needed. We have copyright and the ability to make your program closed source.

You specifically said "We have copyright"

 

Please explain to me how this is different from NOOB. also you might have missed it but Microsoft specifically clarifies that it is not just for phones, it can be any computer, in the patent.

I'm not a programmer so IDK how exactly the process is done with each one. There are multiple different processes though to do this. Also, I didn't read about it being for computer or any kind of OS for that matter.

 

Also, yes you can copy a closed sourced program. Sure, not every line of code but you can use a lot of the same elements at least.

[LAwLz]

You specifically said "We have copyright"

And right after that I continued with "and the ability to make your program closed source".

I'm not a programmer so IDK how exactly the process is done with each one. There are multiple different processes though to do this. Also, I didn't read about it being for computer or any kind of OS for that matter.

 

Also, yes you can copy a closed sourced program. Sure, not every line of code but you can use a lot of the same elements at least.

If you are not a programmer or understands how it works then why do you claim that they are not the same?

Yes you can copy closed source software, but you can only do it by putting in as much work as the ones who made it to begin with. At that point you are punishing people for hard work and that's not why we have patents.

[Sharp_3yE]

And right after that I continued with "and the ability to make your program closed source".

LOL now you are just going to ignore that you mentioned copyright and question whether I read your post? You just admitted that I did mention something in your post. So yes I read it. No, I didn't comment on everything. I just wanted to point out that copyright doesn't pertain in this situation.

 

This isn't art. These products/processes aren't categorized as creative work. Not that it isn't creative to make something like this but a patent covers things that are inventions while copyright covers forms of creative expression/work as in a painting, song, or what ever, things that aren't inventions. They do similar things but the details will be different for how they protect both kinds of work.

 

Yes, you can make it difficult for others to copy/take your code and software by doing things like making your software closed source.

 

Another thing is a patent isn't just about a product that is already out. It is also about a process. Microsoft didn't make a patent of this dual boot process because they were trying to protect their current product in the market they have released. No, they are trying to protect this concept that they came up with. Now, it's not that no one else can use this concept it is just that no one can use it without Microsoft's permission.

 

Patents protects people's ideas and products so that someone else can't just make money off your idea or product whether they stole it or came up with it after you did. It's a good thing. I know that Microsoft receives and pays out money because of patents. People use their ideas/products and Microsoft does the same. Every android phone that someone buys, part of the money is going to Microsoft because of the software that is patented by microsoft that is in android devices.

 

If you are not a programmer or understands how it works then why do you claim that they are not the same?

Because I'm not stupid. I can read things and understand things. I don't know the specifics.

 

You blatantly said

So the patent will cover NOOB as well. That means that if Microsoft gets granted this patent, they could actually sue the developers of NOOB even though they developed NOOB before Microsoft even filed the patent.

yet you have no idea. You just said it does without knowing how NOOB's process works and comparing it to Microsoft's process. I'm very sure it doesn't.

 

 

Yes you can copy closed source software, but you can only do it by putting in as much work as the ones who made it to begin with. At that point you are punishing people for hard work and that's not why we have patents.

Patents protects people's ideas and products so that someone else can't just make money off your idea or product whether they stole it or came up with it after you did. With software, with enough time and energy anything can be duplicated, which you just admitted to. That basically true for any product/process. Patents are a good thing. I know that Microsoft receives and pays out money because of patents. People use their ideas/products and Microsoft does the same. Every android phone that someone buys, part of the money is going to Microsoft because of the software that is patented by microsoft that is in android devices.

 

It's not punishing. A person made a product or idea. You have the right to profit off your own idea/product. If you made a product and had a patent on this product and someone wants to make the same thing as your product they can, you would just have to allow them and both sides would agree to any payout from the product. Without a patent, someone could just take your product, make their own, have it cost less then yours, people then stop buying your product that you came up with AND YOU JUST GOT SCREWED!!!!!!

 

That actually happens. People have gotten screwed BIG TIME especially before there were even patents to file. Patents are there just to protect what is yours. Software is no different then something that is tangible.

 

Just like what I said before, sure patents have gotten in the way of progress at times. Sometimes there is patent trolling as well. YES, we all know this. There are two sides to every coin. We must protect peoples ideas and products. Sometimes, a person just makes tons of patents just to make money off them and it can stop progress. We can't cure being a dick. The patent system can be changed a bit to reduce this problem but patents are not a bad thing.

[Ekpyrosis]

-snip-

You're wrong if you think that copyright only applies to creative work. Under US copyright law, if someones writes a piece of software and doesn't explicitly release it under a FOSS licence, it is copyrighted by default.

As you like to quote Wikipedia:

 

 

"computer programs, to the extent that they embody an author's original creation, are proper subject matter of copyright"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright

 

By your argument, no software company could make business in the EU, which has (fortunately!) largely abandoned the concept of software patents.

[Sharp_3yE]

Then I apologize about a few things I said to @LAwLz about how copyright and patents are applicable and thanks for providing more information @Ekpyrosis on this subject.

 

By your argument, no software company could make business in the EU, which has (fortunately!) largely abandoned the concept of software patents.

I'm not saying no software company could make business without a patent. Of course there are multiple ways to secure/protect your software. I just really didn't like how @LAwLz said "Software patents are not needed." I don't think that to be true. I think they are needed. It really depends on the product/process that you want protected though. Especially when something is a process and not actual written software. I'm not saying all software or every product needs a patent. I just think they are needed to protect people's products and services when it makes sense to have one for a particular product. A person or company may need to make patents for their software products/concepts.

It depends on what you need to do for each specific software product or process that decides how you protect your product.

[Albatross]

How can you patient this?! What the hell?!

[LAwLz]

Another thing is a patent isn't just about a product that is already out. It is also about a process. Microsoft didn't make a patent of this dual boot process because they were trying to protect their current product in the market they have released. No, they are trying to protect this concept that they came up with. Now, it's not that no one else can use this concept it is just that no one can use it without Microsoft's permission.

 

Patents protects people's ideas and products so that someone else can't just make money off your idea or product whether they stole it or came up with it after you did. It's a good thing. I know that Microsoft receives and pays out money because of patents. People use their ideas/products and Microsoft does the same. Every android phone that someone buys, part of the money is going to Microsoft because of the software that is patented by microsoft that is in android devices.

But they didn't come up with this concept. It's extremely similar if not identical to NOOB, and now you're saying they want to profit off it? That's really bad because now all of a sudden the opposite of what patents are meant to do is happening. Microsoft would be profiting of other peoples' work because they happened to get granted a patent.

 

 

Because I'm not stupid. I can read things and understand things. I don't know the specifics.

 

yet you have no idea. You just said it does without knowing how NOOB's process works and comparing it to Microsoft's process. I'm very sure it doesn't.

So first you claim that you don't know how it works, then you claim you are very sure it is different. How could you possibly say that? You can't say you are sure about something if you aren't sure. You either know how both works and is sure they are the same/different, or you don't. You can't both be sure they are different yet don't understand how either of them works. That makes no sense.

 

 

Patents protects people's ideas and products so that someone else can't just make money off your idea or product whether they stole it or came up with it after you did. With software, with enough time and energy anything can be duplicated, which you just admitted to. That basically true for any product/process. Patents are a good thing. [deja vu]

Yep, you can duplicate functionality of software if you invest enough time and effort. I don't see how that's a bad thing. It encourages innovation and creativity.

But personally I don't see how this goes against the original intention of a patent. The original intention of patents was to grant the exclusive rights to a "solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process". That means that a patent should not give you exclusive rights to the problem, but rather to your way of solving the problem.

In software, your solution is the source code. Let's take the magnetic glasses holder as an example again. His patent covers using magnets to clip a holder to your shirt. That's a specific way to solve a problem. In this case, Microsoft is not patenting their solution (the solution being the source code), they are patenting the entire problem. If you want to draw a parallel to the magnetic glasses holder, it would be like instead of patenting that specific assembly of magnets and the glasses holder, he would just have patented the entire concept of hanging your glasses on things, and his patent would encompass everything including his magnetic holder. That's bullshit.

 

And that's why I brought up copyright, because the source code (which is the solution to a problem) is protected by that. I believe you should only be able to patent the solution rather than the problem, and in the case of software the solution will always be protected by copyright law unless you explicitly state that you want to use another license such as the GPL or whatever.

Even if you did not patent your work, you would still be protected from people stealing your idea of how to solve a problem. If you wanted to be even more sure that nobody just took the source code, tweaked a few things and then circumvented the copyright law then you could make it closed source.

 

 

It's not punishing. A person made a product or idea. You have the right to profit off your own idea/product. If you made a product and had a patent on this product and someone wants to make the same thing as your product they can, you would just have to allow them and both sides would agree to any payout from the product. Without a patent, someone could just take your product, make their own, have it cost less then yours, people then stop buying your product that you came up with AND YOU JUST GOT SCREWED!!!!!!

That only applies to physical goods, not software. I don't have anything against patents for those things (although I do think it should be shortened a lot and possibly change the system slightly).

 

 

I hope that explained why I believe software patents are bullshit. The TL;DR is that software patents are the exclusive right to a problem, rather than the exclusive rights to a solution (since the source code is the solution and you automatically have exclusive rights to that without patents).

[Technous285]

For those who keep writing "NOOB" to refer to the Raspberry Pi OS software, it's NOOBS - New Out Of Box Software. The "S" is part of the acronym.

[Sharp_3yE]

But they didn't come up with this concept. It's extremely similar if not identical to NOOB, and now you're saying they want to profit off it? That's really bad because now all of a sudden the opposite of what patents are meant to do is happening. Microsoft would be profiting of other peoples' work because they happened to get granted a patent.

THEY ARE NOT PATENTING A CONCEPT! They are Patenting a process. As in how it dual boots. There are other patents that are of the same topic but just different processes. NOOBS I'm very sure is using a different process.

 

 

So first you claim that you don't know how it works, then you claim you are very sure it is different. How could you possibly say that? You can't say you are sure about something if you aren't sure. You either know how both works and is sure they are the same/different, or you don't. You can't both be sure they are different yet don't understand how either of them works. That makes no sense.

Here is what I said "I'm not a programmer so IDK how exactly the process is done with each one. There are multiple different processes though to do this." I do not know the specifics. I can however read articles and what other people say about this subject and understand it.

 

And again, there are other patents that are about the same subject. They each propose a certain process that is followed. @GoodBytes already mentioned this in an earlier post on this thread.

Like those guys?

http://www.google.co...tents/US6260140

Or those guys?

http://www.google.co...tents/US8775780

Or those guys?

https://www.google.c...s/US20140281455

Or how about those guys?

https://www.google.c...tents/US7301822

Or those?

https://www.google.c.../WO2014160375A1

 

 

Yep, you can duplicate functionality of software if you invest enough time and effort. I don't see how that's a bad thing. It encourages innovation and creativity.

But personally I don't see how this goes against the original intention of a patent. The original intention of patents was to grant the exclusive rights to a "solution to a specific technological problem and is a product or a process". That means that a patent should not give you exclusive rights to the problem, but rather to your way of solving the problem.

In software, your solution is the source code. Let's take the magnetic glasses holder as an example again. His patent covers using magnets to clip a holder to your shirt. That's a specific way to solve a problem. In this case, Microsoft is not patenting their solution (the solution being the source code), they are patenting the entire problem. If you want to draw a parallel to the magnetic glasses holder, it would be like instead of patenting that specific assembly of magnets and the glasses holder, he would just have patented the entire concept of hanging your glasses on things, and his patent would encompass everything including his magnetic holder. That's bullshit.

With patents, you can't patent something in a general sense. It has to be something specific. You can't patent "A thing that is placed onto your head" because that can be any hat or anything that is placed on the head. A patent is about protecting a specific product or process. It has to be a specific way of doing something or specific product. It is also only for a set period of time which is usually 20 years from the filing date. It also costs money to keep a patent. On average in 2000 in USA it costs 10,000-30,000 dollars to maintain a patent for 10 years. It can be much more if court is involved.

 

I'm not saying that copying is wrong. My point was that if you develop a product or process you have the right to protect it. A patent is a way to do so. Before patents a person could make a new product, like a new type of desk or machine. A large company could then examine your product and build that exact same thing but make it cheaper.

Patents are just a way to protect what you make. They do protect people's software as well. There is lots of examples of it. Of course it's not the only way. There are other ways of protecting your software if that is what you want to do.

 

I just think it is up to the people who created a product or process to do what every they want with it. If they want to make money off of it and need to make sure that it doesn't get copied then they should have the right to do so legally or through other means (like closed source software). If the people who make the product or service don't care if or want it to get copied then that's their prerogative. If someone also doesn't want anyone else to just use their own product or process they made then that is also their prerogative, it is their stuff and their right to do so. Possibly dickish but their right.

 

 

And that's why I brought up copyright, because the source code (which is the solution to a problem) is protected by that. I believe you should only be able to patent the solution rather than the problem, and in the case of software the solution will always be protected by copyright law unless you explicitly state that you want to use another license such as the GPL or whatever.

Even if you did not patent your work, you would still be protected from people stealing your idea of how to solve a problem. If you wanted to be even more sure that nobody just took the source code, tweaked a few things and then circumvented the copyright law then you could make it closed source.

That is a very interesting aspect that I didn't know about.

 

I just think it depends on what a person is trying to protect and how they want to protect it for what fits best for their product or service. So, if it's through closed source, copyright, patent, waving a large stick at people and threatening that they will hit someone if they steal their product then that's how they want protect their property.

[Trik'Stari]

How can you patient this?! What the hell?!

Simple answer: Lawyers. They can make any bullshit argument sound legitimate.

[LAwLz]

THEY ARE NOT PATENTING A CONCEPT! They are Patenting a process. As in how it dual boots. There are other patents that are of the same topic but just different processes. NOOBS I'm very sure is using a different process.

But they are patenting the concept. The "process" you keep referring to would in this case be the source code.

I strongly disagree that they are patenting a "process" here because you could do the same concept thousands of different ways and all of them will be covered by this patent.

 

 

 

Here is what I said "I'm not a programmer so IDK how exactly the process is done with each one. There are multiple different processes though to do this." I do not know the specifics. I can however read articles and what other people say about this subject and understand it.

 

And again, there are other patents that are about the same subject. They each propose a certain process that is followed. @GoodBytes already mentioned this in an earlier post on this thread.

Like those guys?

http://www.google.co...tents/US6260140

Or those guys?

http://www.google.co...tents/US8775780

Or those guys?

https://www.google.c...s/US20140281455

Or how about those guys?

https://www.google.c...tents/US7301822

Or those?

https://www.google.c.../WO2014160375A1

Okay since you claim that you have read articles and can understand the subject from them. In what way does this differ from NOOBS? You say that you understand the subject well enough to be sure that it is different, yet you have not provided any argument to prove that they are different.

I have read the patent. It is written very broadly and I don't see anything in it which does not cover NOOBS.

 

I have no idea why you are linking me to a bunch of other patents. What are you trying to prove with those? That other people have patents regarding the same subject? I never argued against that. What I am arguing against is software patents.

 

If you are basing your assumptions on GoodBytes' posts then sorry but you are wrong, because Goodbytes' post contains misinformation such as it only applying to phones (it doesn't). The thing he says about how dual booting loads Windows in the background and stuff is not related to this patent either since the patent apples even if you don't have an OS installed (it also covers parts of installing an OS).

 

 

 

With patents, you can't patent something in a general sense. It has to be something specific. You can't patent "A thing that is placed onto your head" because that can be any hat or anything that is placed on the head. A patent is about protecting a specific product or process. It has to be a specific way of doing something or specific product. It is also only for a set period of time which is usually 20 years from the filing date. It also costs money to keep a patent. On average in 2000 in USA it costs 10,000-30,000 dollars to maintain a patent for 10 years. It can be much more if court is involved.

Actually, you CAN patent something in a general sense. The entire software patent system is based around that because if it really was about protecting a very specific implementation of something then it would be the source code that was patented, but it's not.

There are also countless of examples of ridiculous patents which are incredibly broad (just look at Apple, which literally has a patent for rectangles with even edges. By the way, the ports outlined in that patent does not have to match exactly for something to infringe on it).

 

Yeah, because a monopoly on something for "only" 20 years seems totally acceptable right?

[Norseman4]

"Patent application US20150277929, from March 2014, suggests that handsets could be delivered with multiple operating systems available in a compressed form, with a boot loader which offers a choice of which operating system to install. After this process is performed the non-selected operating systems may be deleted."

I like how people are going on and on about dual-boot nearly 3 days after this post.

 

It looks like is a branched installation type thing. No OS is installed at first except to install a single, user selectable, OS from the available pool. In this case Win10 or Android, not both. When it's done, the phone will only have the one OS available to it.

[LAwLz]

I like how people are going on and on about dual-boot nearly 3 days after this post.

 

It looks like is a branched installation type thing. No OS is installed at first except to install a single, user selectable, OS from the available pool. In this case Win10 or Android, not both. When it's done, the phone will only have the one OS available to it.

Yep, exactly like NOOBS does it. You can scratch the "phone" part as well because the patent applies to any kind of computer.