Money from Google’s Android mobile platform keeps pouring in for Microosft, as the Redmond-based company on Monday announced another patent-licensing deal, this time with General Dynamics Itronix.

For the past year or so, Microsoft has been saying that it holds patents on technology used in the Android mobile operating system, and has been either suing or signing licensing agreements with phone and computer manufacturers that use Android. It signed a deal with HTC in April 2010 (it has been said that Microsoft gets $5 for every HTC Android phone sold), and has sued Motorola over its Droid line and Barnes & Noble over its Nook e-readers.

In October, Microsoft essentially said companies using Android need to pay up or get sued.

“Android has a patent fee. It’s not like Android’s free,” CEO Steve Ballmer told the Wall Street Journal in October. “You do have to license patents. HTC’s signed a license with us and you’re going to see license fees clearly for Android as well as for Windows.”

General Dynamics Itronix, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, manufactures rugged laptops and tablets for use in harsh conditions, such as field science and military operations. While many Itronix products use Windows, it is introducing “more diverse applications and increased functionality in products that incorporate the Android platform,” Mark Johnston, director of strategic computing solutions for the Sunrise, Fla.-based company, said in a news release.

The licensing deal gives Microsoft more momentum in what many are calling the “mobile wars” – recent action in the technology industry against manufacturers and sellers of gadgets running Android. For at least the past year, with the mobile industry in serious flux thanks to the wild success of Android, companies have been suing each other mainly to capture licensing fees from Android phones that allegedly violate intellectual property rights.

Microsoft, for one, joined the legal assault on Android when it sued Motorola. In that case, Microsoft said Motorola Droid phones violate Microsoft patents on data syncing and application processes. HTC likely avoided legal action from Microsoft by signing an IP-licensing agreement over Android phones in April.

Other companies also have been taking to their fights to the courts. There is Apple’s lawsuit against HTC. There is Oracle’s lawsuit against Google. There is Apple’s lawsuit against Motorola. Competitors have been trying to stop Android’s incredible surge in every way possible.

(Related: Infographic: The 37 (and counting) lawsuits over Google Android.)

Barnes & Noble, meanwhile, was the first company with the gumption to call out Microsoft’s legal strategy with strong language. From an April legal filing in U.S. District Court in Seattle:

As part of this scheme, Microsoft has asserted patents that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded, or non-essential design features, but uses these patents to demand that every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license from Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and expensive patent infringement litigation. … Microsoft did not invent, research, develop, or make available to the public mobile devices employing the Android Operating System and other open source operating systems, but nevertheless seeks to dominate something it did not invent. On information and belief, Microsoft intends to take and has taken definite steps towards making competing operating systems such as the Android Operating System unusable and unattractive to both consumers and device manufacturers through exorbitant license fees and absurd licensing restrictions that bear no relation to the scope and subject matter of its own patents. On information and belief, to perpetuate this scheme, Microsoft and its agents, including spokesman and chief executive officer Mr. Steven Ballmer, have publicly stated that through its patents Microsoft can dominate, control, and exclude from the market the Android Operating System, other open source operating systems, and open source applications such as Google Chrome. These statements are unjustified in view of the scope of Microsoft’s patents. Moreover, neither Microsoft nor Mr. Ballmer has ever identified to the American public the basis for these grand assertions of dominance.

Asked for comment on B&N’s counter-allegations, a Microsoft spokesperson said in April: “Our lawsuits against Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec are founded upon their actions, and the issue is their infringement of our intellectual property rights. In seeking to protect our intellectual property, we are doing what any other company in our situation would do.”

The terms of Microsoft’s licensing deal with General Dynamics Itronix were not disclosed.

Visit the Microsoft Blog index for more Microsoft news and technology news, and seattlepi.com for more Seattle news.