This agreement expands upon a previous agreement between the two companies, and is one of ten similar deals with other Android and Chrome OS device makers. Other licensees include HTS, Acer, and Samsung. With the inclusion of LG, Microsoft now has licensing agreements covering 70% of all Android-based phones sold in the United States.

While the terms and details of the agreement have not been disclosed, the deal presumably allows LG to use technologies covered by Microsoft’s patents in their Android and Chrome OS devices for a fee. Microsoft’s intellectual property licensing program was begun in 2003. Since then Microsoft has been party to over 1,100 agreements.

[Source: Microsoft Press Release]

The reason for the mammoth spending is it would provide Sprint an exclusive launch of the iPhone 5. Meaning, at the Apple event, on October 4th, Apple will be announcing the iPhone 4S for AT&T and Verizon, while Sprint will enjoy the initial release of iPhone 5 all by themselves. The article states an interesting caveat concerning the deal; the exclusivity would only run until the first quarter of next year.

Would a 3-4 month exclusive iPhone 5 launch be worth $20 billion? Tell us.

Along with the news, BGR also added some interesting tech specs for the handset:

- Large 4-inch screen, similar to LG’s NOVA hi-res display
- 1GB RAM
- 32GB storage
- Slightly larger design, but skinnier and a larger battery

As with all iPhone 5 rumors, this is all speculation and trusting that someone’s “inside source” is correct. If it turns out to be true, this has the potential for a huge shake-up in the mobile world. Will the exclusive release for a few months be enough to make up a $20 billion paycheck? A transaction that BGR states would lose them money until 2014.

In his own statement, Pandora founder Tim Westergren said they has been working on making the service more social for some time. "The idea behind today’s update is to make it really easy to share your Pandora stations and music discoveries with your friends – and vice versa," according to Westergren "To make this truly easy for you, we’ve partnered with the experts at Facebook. Starting today, you can easily link your experience on Pandora with your friends on Facebook. This quickly brings your Facebook friend list into Pandora along with your Facebook profile picture. It quite literally puts a whole new face on Pandora."
 

Comments

Facebook is offering a virtual gift product that revolves around credits that you toss to your ‘friends’ in lieu of simply liking something they do. Kind of a pay for performance model of friendship. Talk about taking relationships to a new low. For just $1 you can purchase 100 credits that you can give to your ‘friends’ when they do something you like. I don’t know about you but I think that throwing money at my ‘friends’ when they do something I like is not something I consider regularly. I guess my ‘friends’ would like it but it seems pretty ridiculous to me. It’s like treating your ‘friends’ like performing seals. When they honk the horn on the stage by the pool you can throw them a fish and a sincere “Nice job. Atta boy!”

Well, it’s no more ridiculous when done on Facebook. In a not so transparent play to generate some revenue it looks as if the folks at “the ‘book” are thinking that if just a small percentage of their 200 million users are empty headed enough to spend a buck a month to throw credits at their buddies then they can generate some dollars. As TechCrunch put it

And it’s far better than having to return to the capital markets to raise money at what’s likely to be an embarrassing large discount from that ridiculous $15 billion valuation that Microsoft gave them in 2007. Maybe if enough users buy credits that can never be redeemed back for cash they can stretch their runway a little farther.

From a business perspective these are the kind of ideas that makes one wonder if Facebook’s management hasn’t jumped the shark. There has to be another way to pry a dollar out of the pockets of their users. I don’t have one personally but you have to figure that if a few smart people sat in a room over lunch they can come up with something that doesn’t require giving your ‘friends’ the equivalent of an online tip for their efforts.

Hey, if you comment here I’ll give you some credit. Doesn’t that feel good?

Comments

The deal includes several ad-supported YouTube channels with professional content from Disney, including teasers and recaps for popular sitcoms from its child company ABC. Part of the revenue is slated to come from in-stream ads on this content sold by ABC. In addition to YouTube’s InVideo overlay ads and banners, Disney will also test pre-rolls with their content.

ClickZ reports that a pending YouTube redesign will highlight the professional content from Disney and other studios:

the current homepage tabs “videos,” “channels,” and “community” will be replaced with tabs for “shows,” “movies,” “music,” and “videos.” The first three tabs will display premium shows, clips, and movies from Google’s network and studio partners, all of which will be monetized with in-stream advertising. Meanwhile the “videos” channel will house amateur and semi-pro content of the sort major brand advertisers have shied away from.

The move toward professional content may show that YouTube is a little concerned about the up-and-coming Hulu.com, now number #2 in the overall video site standings. Hulu features premium television content, and has seen amazing growth since its premiere only eighteen months ago.

However, a deal with Disney may not be enough for YouTube, since, as YouTube points out,

Disney/ABC is rumored to be in talks to buy an equity stake in Hulu, the rapidly growing video entertainment portal jointly owned by News Corp. and NBC Universal. If that rumored deal takes place, ABC shows would likely become available in their entirety on Hulu — leaving YouTube out in the cold for the foreseeable future.

Should YouTube leap on this deal to try to entice Disney to get full episodes? Or is YouTube’s place set as the clip capital of the web?

Comments

If I were part of the Yahoo! family of shareholders, I’d be having similar thoughts about Jerry Yang. This just in..Yang wants to go back to the table with Steve Ballmer to open up the deal. Of course this time, the price will be a fraction of what was originally offered.

Yang isn’t stupid. This is hubris disguised as stupidity, which is worse. Hubris deludes the holder into thinking they know more than they do. It’s pride that overcomes rationality, clouds judgement and obscures reality. Effective leaders should know better, they should be able to see through hubris, especially when acting on behalf of shareholders. Yang failed miserably. He has, through hubris, crushed Yahoo! beyond repair. Semel started the decline through his arrogance, Yang simply took it in a new direction. When humble self evaluation was desperately needed, Yahoo! got bravado and blind delusion.

This isn’t new for Yahoo! Those goes back to the very cultural foundations of the company. In their glory days, they had a cockiness that makes Google seem positively Uriah Heep-ish (the Copperfield character that was "ever so humble"). But at some point during the past decade, you would have thought that Yang and company would have realized that they were a rapidly fading second place player and would have made the necessary adjustments. Not so. Yahoo! has been suffereing from a massive and chronic case of denial.

Here’s the thing. If Microhoo happens (can’t see how it won’t at this point) it’s still going to be a disaster for search. I’ll reserve judgement on the Display side of things, but I tend to agree with some opinions saying that Microsoft should get out of the media business. Yahoo deal or not, Microsoft doesn’t have the culture to build a successful media business. But let’s just talk about search. If Yahoo! is cocky, Microsoft is ten times so. Microsoft just doesn’t know how to play catch up. This, as I said when people started talking about the original Microhoo deal, is two dysfunctional families joining together. It will distract Microsoft from what they need to do, which is become truly innovative and disruptive in redefining search. They’ll think they bought breathing room. They’re wrong. Yahoo’s search business is obsolete and bleeding market share quickly. And the enormous task of integrating two cultures under the given circumstances will sink both ships. There can be no good that comes from this.

Which is sad. At this point, the only hope for search is Google and some amazing start up somewhere. The mighty haven’t fallen yet, but their shoelaces are tied together in what is essentially a sprint, so it’s only a matter of time.

Comments

Doug’s already in…feels like I’m being snubbed…music makes me envision prissy continental types in powdered wigs waltzing together…Scarlet Pimpernel’s knocking…someone asks for my passcode, I give it, spell my name and tell my publication…on hold again, music is louder, I dig the strings, though, very dramatic…pause, maybe this is it…nope, more music, a happier tune this time, very Palace Ball, prissier than before as though some how Frencher, nearly a grand entrance tune–Ballmer and Ozzie must be entering the room…

Call Begins, sorry if I miss stuff, but Doug Caverly is also on the line (update: Doug’s notes are in organized, reporting form) and transcripts will be available later:

Mark Murray: the interest in this announcement was so large it delayed the queue…we’re going to make a significant announcement regarding interoperability…THIS CALL IS NOT ABOUT YAHOO OR THE PROPOSED YAHOO ACQUISITION. WE WILL NOT BE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT.

Steve Ballmer: broad changes to technology and practices…better opportunity for developers and partners…4 new interop. principles 1. open connections 2. data portability 3. enhancing MS support for industry standards 4. more open engagement with open source community

today we are announcing some of the concrete actions:

1. Open connections: Developers will not have to pay a fee or get a license for access; protocol documentation for Office 2007 will be available

2. Document portability: Word, Excel, PowerPoint;

3.

4. Open Source interoperability,

I believe MS long term success depends on our ability to…provide customers with choice

Suffice it to say we are committted to living up to our legal responsibilities around the world

Ray Ozzie: when a new type of product or technology is produced, innovation tends to trump interoperability or data portability…Issues such as document preservation and portability has become a vital concern to customers…a significant shift in strategy for Microsoft…

Reiterating:

1. further opening the connections to our high-volume products so that developers can better interact with them…external interfaces, published specs and APIs, so developers will have same access as Microsoft developers…open and level playing field…patent licenses will be made available with low royalty rates.

2. portability of data: designing and implementing ways to incorporate other document formats

3. support standards across all high-volume formats: innovation and interoperability are important…which industry standards our products will support? Innovating beyond the standard, we will make sure our protocols will interoperate with other standards

Bob Muglia Senior tool VP…:-)

Open specification promise, we’ve worked with Linux, etc., php apps on Windows Server, we’ve had a number of agreements with Novel and Linux…and we’ve some very tangible results…we’ve had a lot of technical interoperability, been working with JBoss, etc..close alliances to create interoperability between MS and open-source…working closely with Samba…working with OSI, approved two MS licenses…

We’re pleased to take these steps, yada yada, we look forward to working with the open source community…i want to emphasize that as we move forward with these principiles we will be aggressive in publishing…we look forward to several new initiatives launching after today…

we’re announcing a document interoperative initiative…

Turns over to Brad Smith

Intellectual property rights being made available today…the announcement covers communications protocols and intelectual rights…falls into 3 categories: provide access free of charge to MS trade secrets; will not need a trade secret license; will be able to access this information on the web; provide royalty-free use regarding patent rights; the principles address the patents with communications protocols in general, all of MS high-volume products…Open source developers will be able to use protocols without paying for a patent license…the interoperability announcement reflects a change in the landscape…a positive step in accordance with EU regulatory requirements, in line with the CSI decision… 

Q&A:

Softening your approach toward IP?

Smith: not announcing any change to broader trade secret or IP rights…carving out a portion of our patent rights in providing a covenent to OS distributors so that they don’t have to worry about addressing these particular patent rights…set of IP rights important for interoperability…compliance with 2004 decision of EU Commission…noncommercial developers, this covenant not to sue is applicable, but commercial developers need to get special agreements…Novel has a patent license, for example…

Patents will be readily available for a fee…will protect trade secrets, unless they’re a part of the interoperability agreement

The EU commission has posted a statement…this is expanded and new…we’re not here to characterize what the EU Commission said…This has been a continuing evolution, not just for Microsoft, but for the entire industry…there’s two things worth noting in this regard…we recognize it’s committing the company to actions that are consistent with our words…ray and bob have spent substantial time with our engineers…we’re not just issuing principles, we also put up 30,000 pages of documentation on the Web…up until today one needed to enter into a trade secret license and pay a fee to get it…now it’s available to anyone in the world…over the coming weeks and months, we’ll be posting many additional thousands of pages of documentation…starting in April and completed by June, beta testing starts…others will assess how we live up to these principles, as people test this proposition in the months to come they’ll come away with a high regard for the steps our engineers are taking.

Is a more open approach critical to Microsoft’s future? Why not sooner? To avoid antitrust in the future?
 

Ballmer: We’re doing it on our own…reflects the reality of our unique legal situation…new opportunities and risks in the new connected world…the world we grew up in was individual machines…in the more connected services-oriented world, one of the greatest value-adds will be what people do on the other end of the wire…at the same time we open up new opportunities to add new value…there are risks that come with it but on balance it is consistent with what we will be doing from a legal perspective…and good for shareholders.

Another: Interopability is important b/c the modern data center is a very heterogenius environment…have to consider what the customer enviroment is, what the deployment enviroment is

Standardization of Office open xml?

Continuing to pursue that…consistent with open standards…we will look to lead the standardization process and sometimes look to be on the receiving end…looking forward to a variety of participants in Open XML.

Who to believe? Valleywag and Venture Beat seem convinced that Facebook will buy Plaxo:

Facebook is “one hundred percent” buying Plaxo, we’ve just heard from a source.

Others like TechCrunch aren’t convinced:

Why would Facebook part with the rumored $200 million for a service that is so relatively small? Crazier deals have been done, but this one isn’t happening (yet).

Why indeed. Plug-ins, to bring contact information from multiple sources into one place, may be the new plastics. Venture Beat says Plaxo has that solved.

Recent news about Plaxo and Facebook centered on Robert Scoble prying data out of Facebook using an alpha build of a Plaxo tool. Perhaps the gregarious blogger stumbled upon something people weren’t meant to see?