Jay Green of Cnet reports:

As Android has grown and surpassed Microsoft’s mobile-phone operating systems in the marketplace, the company has targeted handset and tablet makers that use the Google operating system. It’s racked up a laundry list of licensees in a little more than a year, starting with longtime partner HTC. Just last month, Microsoft reached an Android licensing agreement with Acer.

I’m not criticizing Microsoft for its dealmaking. For one thing, I’m not a patent lawyer, so I don’t have a stance on the legitimacy of its claims against Google’s products. For another, aggressive licensing is probably less depressing than what the rest of the industry is doing: Attempting to sue everybody else’s pants off. But considering the company’s lack of success with Windows Phone so far, the possibility exists that it’ll slowly devolve from a product company into a patent-licensing one–and that would be sad.

What’s a pico projector? The devices have become popular as a low-cost way to project an image anywhere.  I’m seeing more and more of them at tech shows lately, although typically as a standalone device and not integrated like we’re seeing here.

There’s definitely a cool factor: as well as offering the projection capabilities you’d expect, Apple’s patent involves making the projected images gesture enabled. Say you have two iOS projecting devices side by side, for example. You could transfer the projected content from one device to the next by swiping. Pretty cool, eh?

From the detail of the patents, Patently Apple says it has reason to believe the company’s work in the technology is pretty far along. Of course, as with all intriguing patents, it’s important to remember that it’s also possible that this one will never lead to commercial products at all. You never know.

While this seemingly has an obvious business application, I wonder how it could be used for the consumer? There could be some pretty darn cool applications for this, especially in gaming. Think of it as a mini-Kinect. It could add a whole new level to the iOS platform, and do something no one else is currently even close to copying to my knowledge.

There’s much more to this patent, including unified displays, shared workspaces, and the like. I’d give it a read. It’s certainly something that could eventually be a big deal for future iOS devices.

And then something unexpected happened: Microsoft released an e-mail from a Google executive which seemed to prove that Microsoft had invited Google to join it in bidding on some of the patents in question. Google declined to participate. Some conspiracy!

Drummond’s post has accomplished something which you might have thought was impossible: it’s leading to blogosphere coverage which largely sides with the patent aggressors. And while I agree with at least part of the gist of the post–patents on questionable “inventions” are stifling innovation rather than aiding it–the post doesn’t make a convincing case that Google is being persecuted.

To wit:

1. Drummond: “Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what’s going on.” Sure, Microsoft vs. Apple is the tech world’s most legendary ongoing battle. But the companies’ history of working together when it serves both their interests is just as long. Remember this?

2. “But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.” Which patents are bogus, and why? We don’t need a full accounting, but examples would have helped. (Google has vast quantities of patents itself, so I presume it’s not opposed to patents, period.)

Also: nothing inherently wrong with competition between big companies being hostile. It’s not always genteel and cheerful, and that’s okay. Even necessary.

3. “Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.” What’s with the “Instead of?” Apple is responsible for more of the smartphone biz’s influential new features than any other single company. Its devices are the most iconic ones on the planet. Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 may not have much traction, but it’s clever and available on a bunch of handsets. Both companies are building and fighting.

4. “Fortunately, the law frowns on the accumulation of dubious patents for anti-competitive means — which means these deals are likely to draw regulatory scrutiny, and this patent bubble will pop.” I hope so! And if it does, Google doesn’t have a long-term problem here.

5. “Unless we act, consumers could face rising costs for Android devices — and fewer choices for their next phone.” I like cheap phones as much as the next gadget nerd. But I don’t have any fundamental problems with the idea of companies using patents to preserve a competitive edge and prevent the value of inventions from immediately dwindling. It’s when the patents aren’t really for inventions that we have a problem. And Google’s case would be a lot stronger if it demonstrated the bogosity of the patents it says are bogus.

As Paul Thurrott and others have pointed out, Android has gained so much mobile market share in so little time at least in part because Google gives it away to handset manufacturers that were used to paying companies such as Microsoft for software. Google can afford to give away a mobile operating system because it utterly dominates the search-engine advertising business. The company knows how to play hardball. And if it’s going to blog about all this–and I think it should–it would be smart for it to explain just what makes Microsoft and Apple’s actions unethical rather than just very, very aggressive.

[UPDATE: Google has amended the original blog post with a response to Microsoft's leaked Google e-mail. It's probably just me being dense, but I don't understand Google's brief explanation of why it chose not to join Microsoft's bid for the patents in question.]

So Apple is suing Samsung, accusing it of imitating Apple products with its Galaxy phones and tablets. The most startling thing about the news may be that the two companies weren’t already in court with each other. Over the past few years, the mobile industry has been so rife with suits and countersuits that if every complainant managed to sue every subject of its ire out of business…well, there’d hardly be a mobile industry left.

I had trouble remembering the precise details of the umpteen cases that have made headlines–as well as some related relationships, such as Microsoft’s licensing agreements with Amazon and HTC–so I decided to document them with a handy-dandy infographic, as much for my own edification as anyone else’s.

A few notes:

• This covers only patent-related suits, not ones solely over trademarks, employee poaching, and other issues.
• It only address mobile-related tussles (which is why LG’s attempt to prevent Sony from importing the PlayStation 3 into the US isn’t listed).
• It only involves great big companies, not smaller ones who are doing some of the suing.
• I’ve identified software and hardware companies that work together on devices (such as Microsoft and Samsung) but haven’t tried to indicate OEM and component relationships.
• I’ve also shown some licensing relationships I know about, but there are probably others.
• Any cases which I’ve forgotten about or didn’t know about in the first place aren’t here.

With that out of the way…

If you’ve got any corrections, additions, or thoughts about any of this, lemme know. I may update the graphic as future events warrant…although the mere thought of even more mobile legal spats cropping up is depressing me…

The license fee that Microsoft says it expects makers of Android devices to pay it would make it the only company to collect a royalty on every Android-based gadget sold. (Google gives away the software.)

In a blog post announcing the suit, Microsoft Corporate VP Horacio Gutierrez says:

By bringing this case, we are protecting our investments on behalf of our customers, partners and shareholders – just as other companies do. Our firm view remains, however, that licensing is the best way forward for the industry, and we will continue to prefer the licensing path to litigation.

Microsoft is suing Barnes & Noble on behalf of its customers? Gee thanks. But some customers of Microsoft (and other tech outfits, including Apple, Nokia, HTC, and others) would much rather that the companies spent less time in court squabbling over patents on rather obvious ideas and more time actually making innovative products. (Barnes & Noble, unlike Microsoft and its partners, has succeeded in designing and selling an e-reader that large numbers of people want.)

In Microsoft’s defense, it’s not a lawsuit-crazy company–it says it’s only filed seven “proactive” patent suits in its 36 years in business. But maybe that’s an argument against cases like these, not in favor of them: The company sure seems to have done well over the years without resorting to stuff like this.