Microsoft, Google in rare technology pact
Microsoft has licensed its technical know-how to nearly every company, including rivals such as Apple and Nokia.
Now Redmond can add Google to the list. To help power the Google Sync product that was announced on Monday, the search giant has licensed Microsoft's ActiveSync protocol for sharing information between a server and mobile phone.
Google Sync allows users to synchronize their contacts, and in some cases calendar information, with Google's Web-based services. It works with a range of phones including Windows Mobile phones, Apple's iPhone, RIM's BlackBerry, and phones from Nokia and Sony Ericsson.
Generally, companies have licensed the ActiveSync protocol to link data between a cell phone and a Microsoft Exchange server. In this case, though, Google is using ActiveSync to link Google data off of their servers to mobile phones.
Although Google and Microsoft have cooperated in some areas in the past, the deal on Monday is the first announced example of one of those companies licensing the other's intellectual property, according to Microsoft.
Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft's top intellectual property lawyer touted the move.
"Google's licensing of these Microsoft patents relating to the Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync protocol is a clear (acknowledgment) of the innovation taking place at Microsoft," Gutierrez said in a statement. "This agreement is also a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property."
Gutierrez noted that the company has struck more than 500 licensing deals since it began its intellectual property-sharing push in 2003.
So, by my count, that leaves Oracle and Red Hat among big name technology companies that don't have some sort of pact with Microsoft. Anyone else have another prominent name I should add to that list?
Update, 2:05 p.m. PT: I thought it was worth checking to see if the deal between Google and Microsoft was broad enough to cover Exchange synchronizing to an Android device. "Android is not covered by this agreement," a Microsoft representative told CNET News.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
I'm trying to figure out how that's a clear acknowldegment of anything other than you need to licence activesync to sync with a winmo product so microsoft won't sue your butt off?
In some ways it is an acknowledgment... because Google could have thought of other ways to do a sync with Exchange. They could conceivably write code on the server side (or maybe even at the client-side) that talks to exchange using exposed Exchange (public) APIs and have that code talk with Google's sync app.
Seriously, if Google thinks ActiveSync does not work, they should do it themselves. This is another sign of Google growing-up. They must have compared between time-to-market and cost of building it themselves and licensing it. If they had Google Phone last year, I bet that they would have attempted to build it themselves.
It would still have been covered by the patent. Microsoft would likely have sued. Google might have gotten the patent dismissed, but with messy protocols like this, it's hard to convince a jury that there is nothing innovative there.
Since the only reason to license ActiveSync is to support Windows Mobile phones and iPhone, it really isn't worth for Google to fight this battle; for Android, Nokia, and other phones, they use SyncML or their own tools, which are not covered by Microsoft's patents.
They probably got the license cheap or free, and Microsoft got bragging rights.
It doesn't reflect on MS's alleged ability to innovate.
Another example is OpenOffice which can open MS Word documents (older, v6, binary format). Microsoft did not sue Sun for it.
pentest -- yes, they did it to save time and money... but my point was that if they see ActiveSync as "useless" or bad for the customer, they wouldn't license it no matter how much money they save (yes, not even if Microsoft pays them to do it). By licensing it, they acknowledge that it is at least worth something.
If ActiveSync is so bad, why would a company like Google like to license it?
I don't have any notes with Google, but if this takes off, perhaps Apple will allow Google to have such an App on their iPhone/Touch platform.
http://www.google.com/mobile/apple/sync.html
"You can now sync your calender and contacts with Google by setting up an exchange account on your iPod Touch."
That you can, but unfortunately Apple's mail client (the *only* thing available or approved for use by Apple) merges all of them together as one lump. When I synched with my work account, I ended up downloading the entire global address list. No, there are no options to separate it out into groups like you can with Exchange normally. Instead I went from an address book of 50 people to more than 100,000. That somewhat makes it rather difficult to use with the Touch interface where you can only see ten entries at a time max. A whole lot of finger flicking to get to where you want.
I want notes synch, but the Apple app doesn't have that yet.
As long as the companies continue to buy exchange licenses, they're fine.
You might want to look up what a standard is.
The other "standard" we have is Lotus (IBM) Notes... Gotta love the Domino servers!
Ugh, Powerpoint sucks at making good presentations quickly. You would have had me if you stated something like microsoft word, or photoshop.
By the way on the Internet, MS is the little rival.
No, it's not. Microsoft's protocols are no more innovation than different shapes ink cartridges for ink jet printers are.
Google's licensing of them is simply an acknowledgment that it's not worth bothering to fight this. There are plenty of open sync protocols, it's just that Windows Mobile phones don't speak them.
Google on the other hand has both, the need and understandings for both corporate users and the innovation which is adapted and embraced much faster by consumers than corporations.
Croc.
It just shows Google's strangle hold on the desktop.
Google would prefer to use or create open source as a solution.
It just shows Google's strangle hold on the desktop.
should be
It just shows Microsoft's strangle hold on the desktop.
Without this piece of information it is impossible to form any judgment.
- by darrentan1985 February 11, 2009 1:01 AM PST
- Nowadays it's vital for companies to do that to protect their copyright.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)