What's what with Barnes & Noble and Microsoft
Summary: In an unexpected twist, Microsoft buried its Barnes & Noble lawsuit hatchet, and formed a partnership. Why did the two make a deal and what comes next? Here's my take.
Last year, Microsoft sued Barnes & Noble for breaking patents in its Android-based e-readers. Most companies, like Samsung, when sued by Microsoft over similar claims folded and paid off Microsoft. That's why Microsoft makes more money from Android than it does from its own mobile operating system offerings. But, Barnes & Noble didn't roll over. Instead, the last big bookstore company counter-attacked and they were winning. The International Trade Commission (ITC) seemed to be siding with Barnes & Noble. Uh-oh. So, Microsoft played let's make a deal and created a new partnership with Barnes & Noble.
So, did Microsoft do the deal just because they realized that if their anti-Android patents would be ruled to be FUD? No, but it did have a heck of a lot to do with it. As Alison Frankel, senior writer at The American Lawyer, commented, “Microsoft paid B&N, the patent defendant, a sum of money that exceeded the marketplace value of its investment. How often does a patent plaintiff pay the defendant in a settlement? Especially when that defendant is on the ropes and urgently searching for a strategic investor?”
I know the answer to that one: Never.
If Microsoft had lost this case, they would have had every company that ever signed an Android patent deal with them coming back armed to the teeth with lawyers. It's still going to mean legal trouble though for Microsoft. Frankel added, “So if you're another Android user thinking about saying no to Microsoft when it comes around with a licensing demand, you have to be emboldened by the B&N story: After enduring a year under scrutiny as a defendant, Barnes & Noble ends up with $300 million and drastically improved business prospects. That's not the scorched-earth result you might fear from taking on Microsoft and its lawyers.”
I know some Android fans hate this deal. They wanted to see Microsoft's patents taken to the cleaners. I did too, but Barnes & Noble is a bookstore company that's been struggling and trying to find a nook for itself in the e-book world. That hasn't been easy.
While I like the Barnes & Noble Nook family, and I probably use my Nook Tablet more than any other tablet in my house, most people want iPads or, if they are going to buy an Android tablet, they're going to get Barnes & Noble arch-rival Amazon's Kindle Fire.
So, put yourself in Barnes & Noble's shoes. Would you fight, and probably win, a patent lawsuit that would take years to resolve? Or, would you make a deal and create a subsidiary with a net-value that's greater than your market-cap? Of course you would.
Microsoft had more than the fear of seeing its patent troll ways over-turned driving it to the deal. While Windows 8 has its fans, many other people, like yours truly, thinks Windows 8 will be dead on arrival. Still, as much as I dislike Metro on the desktop, I'll concede Metro might have a shot on a smartphone or tablet... if Microsoft could only get someone to buy a Windows-powered device.
Microsoft owns the desktop, albeit its decade old Windows XP is really what most people use, but it a total non-player on tablets and smartphones. I don't care if Metro on tablets can slide, dice, and more, Microsoft needed a partner who already has a real presence in tablets—sorry Dell, HP, you're fine for PCs and servers, but tablets? I think not—and that company was Barnes & Noble.
Now, we don't know that we're going to see a Windows 8-powered Nook tablet (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/will-barnes-noble-and-nook-usher-in-a-199-windows-metro-tablet/20389), but I'd bet on it. Nooks don't sell as well as the Kindle Free, but they do sell, they have fans, and with this one move Microsoft can place Windows 8 devices in Barnes & Noble stores around the country.
These Nooks will not be dedicated e-readers. Dedicated e-readers are history. We'll also see a Nook reader app. for other Windows RT devices, but that will be small potatoes.
To be exact, I predict we'll see Windows RT (Windows on ARM) powered Nook tablets in Barnes & Noble stores by the 2012 holiday season. To help create a market for them, Microsoft will arrange for them to be sold for less than cost. I expect, we'll also continue to see Android-based Nooks.
Taken all-in-all, both Barnes & Noble and Microsoft won here. Barnes & Noble got a welcome injection of cash. Yes, I know the history of companies that have partnered with Microsoft—Nokia and Novell for instance—has not been good, but Barnes & Noble needed a deal like this. Microsoft gets to continue, for now, to shake down Android vendors. The boys from Redmond also get a consumer brand and sales channel for its long-suffering device lines.
The losers? Android supporters and software patent opponents. Still, this deal can also be seen a sign of weakness by Microsoft. Other Android companies are going to be a lot less likely to sign on the dotted line when Microsoft's lawyers come calling.
Related Stories:
Microsoft and Barnes & Noble settle patent dispute; create new subsidiary
Will Barnes & Noble and Nook usher in a $199 Windows Metro tablet?
Is there a Windows-based Barnes & Noble reader in the works?
Windows Phone Nook: The best device Microsoft’s money can buy
Barnes & Noble cuts Nook eReader prices ahead of Mother's Day
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback
Of course all thats just speculation, nothing more.
No, Software Already Has Copyrights
Factually incorrect
Just imagine
You only got that partially correct
Founded on?
Even Q-DOS needed to be fixed to work
You still haven't answered my question
An analogy
"A method for using a trap to catch a mouse,"
after which the patent holder sues every mouse trap out of existence that doesn't pay a licensing fee.
Very few software patents resemble traditional patents on physical goods, and there's a reason for that: software and business methods are expressions and processes or ideas. Expressions are copyrightable. Ideas about how to run a business haven't had any protection, which is how competition happens.
What's what with Barnes & Noble and Microsoft
[i]Instead, the last big bookstore company counter-attacked and they were winning. The International Trade Commission (ITC) seemed to be siding with Barnes & Noble.[/i]
They were? To both of these questions? I saw no evidence of this. I saw some android fans trying to claim things were in their favor but no evidence of it.
[i]So, put yourself in Barnes & Noble???s shoes. Would you fight, and probably win, a patent lawsuit that would take years to resolve?[/i]
Yes, because I've been told that linux/android was all about the freedoms and not the money. So B&N should have continued this fight for linux/android users everywhere.
From Mary J. Foley's Blog:
[i]Does B&N still have to pay Microsoft royalties on every Nook sold as part of the settlement? (Update: The answer to that one is yes, according to a Microsoft spokesperson.)[/i]
So B&N still has to pay Microsoft money. I don't know why you are trying to change history saying Microsoft was the one paying B&N off.
[i]Taken all-in-all, both Barnes & Noble and Microsoft won here.[/i]
That is about the only thing we can agree on here. A Windows Phone based Nook would be awesome.
P.S. Please add more links to your articles because it makes its so much easier to read. *rolls eyes*
That's Only on Paper
Also, Linux may be mostly about freedom, but B&N is all about profit. This is purely a business decision on their part.
Well I expected SJVN to spin it this way
And why would MS be so stupid to make deal that would weaken their existing patent licensing program? So they give money to B&N and weaken their existing position. Yeah, that makes total sense.
How I Understand It
MS, we guess, was hoping that by making the use of Android/Linux other than free (as in beer), OEMs would choose a Windows os. Turns out, OEMs said "It will cost us to use Android? Um. Okay, here's the money. We're still using Android." This was not what Microsoft hoped would happen. As far as I recall, two people declined the deal, Motorola and Barnes & Noble.
With this agreement, we assume that down the road Barnes & Noble will market a Windows e-reader. Microsoft will support it with authoring tools and now it has a chance to get in the game with Apple and Amazon.
Barnes & Noble didn't have to go to court, take its chances and ends up cash positive, though it is investment in a subsidiary.
One correction to the above article: I don't think any of the licensing agreements were settlements after suits were filed. I believe they were the results of negotiations where a law suit was being threatened by Microsoft.
Microsoft Created a Settlement that Was Better Than a Win for B&N
It's not stupid for Microsoft to make the deal because the deal is better for their patent litigation position than a loss would be. It's better that they ended up giving B&N money than that they were ruled against in court. That would weaken their patent licensing program even more (a lot more) than this settlement. Besides this, the deal actually gives them an opportunity to still make money on the situation. It's the classic win-win.
Why would MS be so stupid...?
Reply to otaddy:
I might be wrong, but aren't you one of the talkbackers that holds that profit maximization (within the bounds of the law) is the sole legitimate object of commerce?
I'm disappointed that B&N chose to settle rather than fight (and said so), but I don't get to make that decision.
So B&N is just a whore
And now, well, they still end up paying something for each Nook sold...
Sorry, Im just not convinced that B&N had a solid case.
otaddy
I too was looking forward to this, and as going to laugh at the Microsoft fanboys when B&N won. Microsoft offered to Pay B&N for a good reason, It's cheaper to Pay B&N than have you FUD patents tossed out. If Microsoft thought the honestly had a chance, do you think they would have put up $300 million?
"And now, well, they still end up paying something for each Nook sold..."
B&N would have to sell at least 20 million Nooks, to cover the check Microsoft wrote.
"Sorry, Im just not convinced that B&N had a solid case."
Apparently Microsoft realized B&N had a solid case, because you don't go from suing, to paying 300 million when you're winning.
Weak prediction, Steven
What form-factor(s) for Windows RT (Windows on ARM) powered Nook tablets are you predicting? 7-inch, 10-inch or both?
Will the Windows RT (Windows on ARM) powered Nook tablet be a full tablet, like the Nook Tablet, or more of a cross between an eReader and a tablet, like the Nook Color?
Finally, do you believe that eTextbooks (think of the college stores) are of interest to Microsoft as part of this deal? What form-factor(s) do you believe would be most appropriate for eTextbooks? 7-inch? 10-inch? (Hint: a John Grisham novel is not a textbook.)
Pyrrhic victory
Your argumentation is completely logic Sir but neither was so difficult reach to this conclusion.
Two things more:
-Yes MS won but it was to Pyrrhic victory
-It would be worst than Pyrrhic (highly probable) if we consider its last alliances (Yahoo!, Nokia, etc, etc.)
And it is not a coincidence because 'We used MS product only because we have not because we want'
We will see.Revisit in 5 years