Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue 278
An anonymous reader writes "On the opening day of a patent trial between Microsoft and Google-owned Motorola Mobility, Motorola filed a brief (PDF) arguing that the WiFi tech central to the case is also critical to Microsoft's new Surface tablet. Motorola says royalties totaling 2.25% of all Surface revenues is a good starting point. They wrote, 'Microsoft's new Surface tablet will use only 802.11, instead of cellular or wired connections, to connect to the internet. Without 802.11 capability, the Surface tablet would be unable to compete in the market, because consumers can readily select tablet devices other than the Surface that have 802.11 capability.' Microsoft, of course, says this figure is outrageous, given 'Motorola's promise to standards bodies to offer access to the "standard essential" patents on fair and reasonable terms.'"
2.25% of nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
unless someone shows good sales numbers for the surface
Re:2.25% of nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Surface: two and half years late, limited app
Microsoft Store; word of mouth (Score:2)
most people want to play with the device before they commit their hard-earned money on it
Presumably they can do that by visiting the nearest Microsoft retail store [microsoftstore.com] or by finding a real life friend or relative who has visited a Microsoft store.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad both of those are VERY rare.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The nearest Microsoft retail store [microsoftstore.com] is a hundred miles away [google.com] and I live in a city of 120,000. Epic fail. Who in their right mind would make a 200 mile round trip to see if a new Microsoft product sucked?
Re: (Score:2)
The nearest Microsoft retail store is a hundred miles away and I live in a city of 120,000.
I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana, a city of over 200,000. The nearest Apple Retail Store is 90 miles away in Mishawaka.
Who in their right mind would make a 200 mile round trip to see if a new Microsoft product sucked?
People who already live in the test-market cities, or have friends or relatives who live there and visit them carrying a Surface. And they could easily be visiting for reasons other than just to show off the Surface.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Apple%AE+-+iPad%AE+2+with+Wi-Fi+-+16GB+-+Black/1945531.p?id=1218303031896&skuId=1945531&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=1945531&extensionType=pla:g&s_kwcid=PTC!pla!!!41801918959!g!!21144920839
Sales/usage figures for iPhone you can get by looking at mobile networks usage on Sprint or AT&T. If they refuse to release that, check FaceBook about who's posting from their fucking iPhone for an approximation.
Fair != Cheap for one party (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft, of course, says this figure is outrageous, given 'Motorola's promise to standards bodies to offer access to the "standard essential" patents on fair and reasonable terms.'"
They have - they offered access to the patents for 2.25% - all they have to prove to the court is that this is their standard opening offer to show that it is non-discriminatory and fair.
If Microsoft want to play, they should offer back some of their FRAND patents to get the rate lowered. That's how the system is meant to work. Oh, but wait, Microsoft is fairly new to this type of hardware so probably hasn't got a lot to offer in this category.
Re: (Score:2)
I am quite sure that Microsoft don't even need to offer FRAND patents to get the rate lowered. Other patents such as say those on say FAT would probably work as well :-)
Re:Fair != Cheap for one party (Score:4, Informative)
We can be pretty sure that Google isn't charging everyone else 2.25%. Google only holds a couple of significant 802.11 patents while organizations like CSIRO hold a larger number of more important patents. If 2.25% was the base rate for just Google's share, you'd be losing 10%+ of your revenue just to 802.11 patent holders.
This is just Google taking the screws to Microsoft to make a point. They've already tried this once before with H.264 (another tech that they hold only a few patents), going after Microsoft for 2.25% of Windows and Xbox revenue.
Re:Fair != Cheap for one party (Score:5, Informative)
We can be pretty sure that Google isn't charging everyone else 2.25%. Google only holds a couple of significant 802.11 patents while organizations like CSIRO hold a larger number of more important patents. If 2.25% was the base rate for just Google's share, you'd be losing 10%+ of your revenue just to 802.11 patent holders.
Almost everyone else cross-licenses to get a lower rate (or no royalties at all, if their portfolio is big enough). MS and Apple don't have any FRAND patents of their own to cross-license, so they are obligated to pay full freight (2.25% per device).
Patent for the obvious. (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.
Are we really handing patents out for this?
What if the tablet has a video connector, or a USB port. Who patented that?
Can I be the guy who patented having a power connection on electronic devices? I'll sit back and let everyone else do the work for a change.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.
Are we really handing patents out for this?
Yes, indeed. Motorola has got patents on WiFi technology on pretty much any device. But consider: Apple has patents on the external shape and icons of the iPad. That is infinitely much worse; and even worse is that Apple feels that 'innovation' is worth $20 per device copying the rounded rectangular shape.
Re:Patent for the obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.
Are we really handing patents out for this?
Yes, indeed. Motorola has got patents on WiFi technology on pretty much any device. But consider: Apple has patents on the external shape and icons of the iPad. That is infinitely much worse; and even worse is that Apple feels that 'innovation' is worth $20 per device copying the rounded rectangular shape.
Actually, I think extortion on standard essential FRAND patents are far worse than trying to prevent someone from almost xeroxing the device. There are many ways to create devices (cell phones and tablets looked really different before the iPhone), but a standard is just that... a standard. And to get your patent included in a standard, you make promises that should be upheld.
Re:Patent for the obvious. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many ways to create devices
Do you have a circular television or a triangular radio? What is so innovative about a rectangular shape that is slightly rounded at the edges? My Casio calculator 30 years ago had the same shape.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? First how are the promises not being upheld. The promises are defined in the contract, not by MS. There is not a specific rate that must be offered, and negotiations are allowed as part of that promise.
Also something does not have to be part of a standards body to be a standard. At this point certain shapes that have been known to work best are defacto standards, and not using them means inferior products.
Re: (Score:2)
> xeroxing the device
I'm sorry you have violated Xerox's Corporation trademark on the use of the protected phrase "xerox". According to Xerox corporation "you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox Brand copying machine".
I think Trademarks are mostly ok how they are, as opposed to the insanity's that are copyright and patents.
Re:Patent for the obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
But consider: Apple has patents on the external shape and icons of the iPad. That is infinitely much worse; and even worse is that Apple feels that 'innovation' is worth $20 per device copying the rounded rectangular shape.
That is a design patent, not a utility patent. They're nothing alike, except for the word "patent". A design patent doesn't cover an innovation at all, it covers the non-functional appearance aspects of a functional object. For example, the external shape and icons of a branded product that are not critical to how it functions but are characteristic of that product. A design patent is supposed to be narrowly-defined. Its function is not to prevent competitors from making a similar product, but rather to prevent competitors from making a knock-off of your product.
For example, your average Android phone wouldn't infringe on an iPhone design patent. They look and behave similarly, but not the same. You can tell the difference. Now go to a market in China and pick up a knock-off iPhone. It looks exactly like an iPhone, it has the same UI widgets as an iPhone, and it's pretty hard for a casual observer to tell it apart from an iPhone. But it's not. That's a design patent infringement.
Of course, how well this works in practice comes down to how courts decide individual cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they really hand out patents for useful inventions. Just because everyone uses the invention, doesn't mean that there can't be a patent on it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll also add that we hand out patents for useful inventions to the people who worked out the invention's problems (or at least we try to). No, putting a power connector in an electronic device isn't patent-worthy. Designing a physically-tiny connector that's capable of transferring significant (charging) power, resistant to accidental damage, also usable for data transfer, and durable through millions of use cycles to boot, is something that is definitely worth a patent, but it'll cost you hundreds of hour
Re: (Score:3)
In general, I agree with you. However I find it to be 'distasteful' that so many patents are not intended to recoup cost and earn money on the invention, but are instead used to block out competition on tangential products.
Inventing a new Wodidgit and patenting it, then demanding royalties from anyone using the new Wodidgit is one thing. However, patenting the interface to the Wodidgit and then preventing anyone from producing compatible support products is one aspect of the patent system I hate.
When I wo
$15 per Android device (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Microsoft were claimed to be receiving $15 per Android device. Ar $600 for a device, 2.5% would be $15.
So what's the problem? Microsoft made claims that Android infringes just 6 dodgy patents. 802.11 is a core patent.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf
Patents such as : "Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area."
Or "“Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents.”,
I don't see the problem with this, they dish it out but they don't take it? Their sales of Surface devices will be far less than Android devices, so they'll pay a lot less.
Re: (Score:2)
Honest question. I don't see any reason why they would, but did those Microsoft patents need to fall under FRAND licensing agreements? There is a notable difference between the two scenarios if one is FRAND and one isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Good for Motorola. (Score:3)
Microsoft has devolved into a corporate raider (Nokia) and patent troll. (HTC, et al). A little of their own medicine is good for them.
No need to get the lawyers involved.... (Score:5, Funny)
Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue
So give them a couple hundred bucks and be done with it...
-S
Re:No need to get the lawyers involved.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You just struck gold.
MS don't want google to know how many surface tablets they are(n't) shipping, and that may be the reason to avoid the per-device payment.
hah hah
Attracting app developers without audience size (Score:2)
MS don't want google to know how many surface tablets they are(n't) shipping
I thought it would be good for the Windows RT platform if prospective developers of applications for Windows RT had an idea of how many potential customers had devices that can run applications for Windows RT. How else does Microsoft plan to draw developers away from iPad, Kindle, and Nexus 7/10?
Re: (Score:2)
by giving them RT devices and constantly pressurising them with money, booze etc. to do so.
saying that "you MUST DO YOUR PORT NOW!!! OR YOU'LL BE LEFT OUT OF THE BOAT" doesn't hold that much weight if there's less than half a million potential users.
fair and reasonable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
fair and reasonable is actually quite simple. If you're charging everyone .5%and then charging a particular vendor 2.25% it's not fair and reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone does not want to cross license then 2.25% can still be considered fair, since that person does not want to offer anything and the body determines what is fair.
Also we are not talking about the price being charged but the price being offered. It would effectively end the negotiation and given an unfair adv
2.5% of *all* Surface revenues? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I'm sure they're doing it as a "when in Rome" situation because they've been burned so many times by Apple and MS suing them over patients.
Re: (Score:2)
I've never owned an iPad, a Kindle or a netbook and I have no interest in the Surface. Sometimes I wouldn't mind owning an android tablet, but really have no use for it other than to use it as an e-reader, which my android phone does nicely anyway.
I think you've summed up the consumerism and how loosely the term innovative is thrown around these days. "But judge our product has rounder corners, it's innovative", "I know let's attach a keyboard as the cover instead of a kickst
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.
Android isn't a company. That isn't how patents work. Microsoft cross licensed patents with other handset manufacturers, just like every one of them did with all the others. Google can't defend anything, because they weren't the licensee or the target of any legal actions with regard to that IP.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft milked their business partners for quite a big load of cash and is now at the point where they have a bigger income from Android phones than from their own ones. They are extorting money from Android without contributing anything to it, and now Google is standing up for his allies and hitting them back. I agree that this is not how patents are supposed to work, but Google didn't lobby for the current system. And frankly I don't see how a bogus licencing is more ethical than a bogus suit.
Oracle v. Google (Score:2)
Android isn't a company.
From Wikipedia's article about Android [wikipedia.org]:
So Android is a company. Both it and Motorola Mobility are subsidiaries of Google Inc.
Google can't defend anything, because they weren't [...] the target of any legal actions with regard to [Android] IP.
You mean other than an unsuccessful lawsuit from ORACLE [wikipedia.org] (One Rich Anus Called Larry Ellison)?
Re: (Score:2)
You mean other than an unsuccessful lawsuit from ORACLE [wikipedia.org] (One Rich Anus Called Larry Ellison)?
Pretty sure Oracle and Microsoft are different companies. The lawsuits the GP post was talking about were by Microsoft, and were SOP for cross licensing IP between handset manufacturers.
Re:But if GOOGLE does it (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true. Microsoft sued Motorola Mobility (well known patent troll) because of FRAND patents.
You are the one making untrue statements. Motorola Mobility has competing products in the market, hence it is not a troll by any stretch. They are offering their WiFi patents in a FRAND compliant manner at 2.25% to ALL licensees.
More than 44 different patent holders (Score:2)
They are offering their WiFi patents in a FRAND compliant manner at 2.25% to ALL licensees.
If more than 44 different patent holders demand their 2.25 percent of a particular product, then what is left for the device's manufacturer?
Re: (Score:2)
If more than 44 different patent holders demand their 2.25 percent of a particular product, then what is left for the device's manufacturer?
Very good question. Considering that the average smartphone infringes about 20,000 patents, very likely to happen as well.
At long last, the idiotic patent system will get fixed.
In the medium term, the open source Android is largely superior compared to the proprietary shit doled out by Apple and Microsoft; hence it needs all the support and ammunition it can get.
Re: (Score:2)
No.. this is bullshit no matter who does it, and I like google tech.
If this isn't a patent on wi-fi itself then putting wi-fi on a computer-based device is obvious even to a lay person, and it's a bullshit patent. I hope they get their ass handed to them.
Re: (Score:2)
If you check the PDF linked in the summary, you'll see that it's something like 11 patents covering the implementation of Wi-Fi. Though since they make it sound like in many cases there are no other sensible ways to implement the standard, it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
Re: (Score:2)
Because they were developed as part of a standard, the patents have to be licensed under terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory(FRAND) terms. Microsoft is claiming that the amount of money they are requiring is not meet the FRAND requirement. And at 2.5% of Surface revenues, Microsoft is probably right.
Re:But if GOOGLE does it (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone is on Google's side in this, you're a bloody hypocrite.
If Google is spending money to keep the patent system going, that makes me mad. But if Google is using the patents it holds to attack people who are attacking it with patents they hold, that's called fighting back, and they would have to be fucking stupid not to do it. In addition, they're only attacking people I hate. There are lots of other people "infringing" on the painfully obvious patents they hold, but does anyone here really believe Google is going to go full patent-troll and attack them too if they succeed with their present lawsuits? I sure don't. But I do believe that Apple or Microsoft will.
This is different, and it's different until they behave otherwise. Motorola hasn't exactly been a saint in the past, so I'm willing to reserve judgment until this whole flap is over to see what they do next, but there is nothing inconsistent about Google's actions, nor is there anything inconsistent about rooting for them while they counterattack, and your bald assertions that there is does not make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Moto-goog charging 2.25% for FRAND patents is NOT a counter attack. No matter what you claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you don't understand what the word 'counter-attack' means.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... I have difficulty finding fault. Or at least, I'm not at all surprised that they're becoming aggressive.
If you were walking down the street, and every day the same couple of guys came up to you and mugged you, how many times would you allow that to happen before you're finally fed up and decide to fight back?
Google is not going around trying to shake down 3rd parties to line their pockets. They're not going around saying, "We're going to CRUSH them! Raaaaah!" Ballmer, however, is famously quo
Re: (Score:3)
Baloney. Turning the other cheek only goes so far, and if your aggressors treat your position as an invitation to continue more frequent and more brutal attacks, people would think you're insane not to fight back. It's not like Google is turning around and suing all and sundry.
To maintain the analogy, MS and Apple hit Google. Google just took it, not wanting to escalate. MS and Apple *continue* to hit Google. Then they move up to brass knuckles. Then knives. Then guns. You can't possibly tell me tha
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when x 2.25
Which is the whole point of this brouhaha.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
They also deserve anything they get with the ongoing extortion of Android/Linux 'patents' that they insist on NDAs to even discus. How that's considered remotely legal is beyond me, and I'm very disappointed with anyone paying them for that kind of extortion.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Interesting)
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
I think that's only partially correct -- I'd bet the real motivation (relatively to the devices in question) is the fact that most of the large Android manufacturers have cross-licensed patents with Microsoft, but a few haven't, and I'd bet Google is getting a lot of pressure from them. Telecommunication patents are a VERY deep thicket, and its a very expensive market to be in if you don't have a competitive portfolio so you can even-steven cross-license with everyone else. Apple and Google both do not have portfolios that deep, and have to fight with their smaller portfolios, rather than cross licensing. There's enough history (and existing licensing) between Apple and Microsoft that they just worked it out. Apple is then very selective about their direct attacks against Google-related properties (Samsung, etc) Google, on the other hand, bought Motorola for its IP portfolio and appears to think going after Microsoft will be better than going after Apple in the middle of the Samsung mess. (Likely rightfully so, best not to get sucked into that quagmire by association...)
IMO, its a risky move by Google. Microsoft's patent portfolio is VERY deep in a lot of areas critical to Google, and this could backfire badly on them.
Of course, anyone who has negotiated anything always starts way higher than you actually will settle. I bet they won't, though -- deep down this is a proxy battle over the things that really matter to Google. They critically need people using Android, Chromebooks and the ilk to keep eyeballs looking at their ads. They haven't knocked Apple down a notch in tablets, so I think they're trying to pre-emptively do so before the tide of web-to-app usage shifts far enough that their revenues completely dry up. And Microsoft is hitting them online with Bing and in devices now.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Informative)
Are you really saying that Google with Moto doesn't have a deep portfolio folder in communications?
I think you have the 2 confused. MS has barely any in the communication area from what I understand. MS is getting Android with other patents (I think 1 is the Fat 32). MS has none in the communication field. Moto has many, Moto cross licenses with many others who do, so taht 2.25% is much less for those other companies.
Since MS has none in this area and I bet Google thinks the patents MS has are software/prior art and not standard essential, Google feels OK. Now MS did get a judge in their backyard who is rulling in their favor (look at same Lawsuit between Moto/Apple in Wisconsin what happened there, and this judge saying he can overide Germany rulings).
You also say about negotiating starting High, MS didn't even negotiate, they got the letter and immediatedly went to ITC/Judge. How is that negotiating in good faith. At least the Judge in Wisconsin saw Apple's ploy for what it was. Wish this judge wasn't so MS biased.
Can you please point out to me MS patents that are critical to Google?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:4, Funny)
is because you haven't understood it right.
I dunno, that sounds more like something Apple would say...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Keep going, that phrase almost made sense. It has "words" at least.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
If putting bad guys in their place is wrong, I don't want to be right!
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
If someone walks up to you and punches you, that's assault. If you hit him back while he's attacking you, that's self-defense.
Apple and Microsoft have been using their patent portfolios aggressively. Google has been using its in self-defense and defense of its allies (Samsung). That's a substantial difference.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry to disappoint you here, but MS actually sued Motorola here because they are being whiny and don't want to pay FRAND rates. 2.25% is nothing for being able to use Wifi on your device - how much would you pay for a Surface if it didn't have Wifi on it? Or rather, if you were offered a Surface without Wifi, how much more would you be willing to pay to get Wifi? Significantly more than 2.25% - probably closer to 50% at least, considering a tablet without Wifi is pretty useless - which means that this pate
Re: (Score:2)
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
Or perhaps, like many here, you believe in the right of self-defense [wikipedia.org]. If you come out to attack me, you cannot complain when I hit you back. If you come at me with a sword, and I have a gun, you also can't complain when I use the gun.
Microsoft and Apple sent a very clear message that they intend to destroy everyone else in the IT industry. Everybody else has the right and, in fact the imperative to fight back. Bullies who are left alone just get stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that GP was attempting to explain that Google has filed suit in self defense.
You don't walk around downtown shooting everyone who gets in your way - that's murder. But, if you're assaulted while downtown, by some deranged fool who is trying to kill you - then you have the right to shoot him, in self defense.
It's never "right" to shoot someone, but in some cases, it's not "wrong" either.
Re: (Score:2)
So Steve Jobs says that they will fight for the iphone leadership no matter what, that apple would go "nuclear", using patents if needed, sue google partners and the partners and google would stay still, paying the money to apple without doing anything? MS go after google partners for stupid patents, some claimed to hit the linux kernel (and never show up proof ), trying to get money from every android... and google would stay still without doing anything?
At least google dont like patents, but its a weapon
Hidden agenda? (Score:2)
Maybe now that they have their own warchest, Google's gambit is to flood the system with as many of these kinds of patent lawsuits as possible, hoping to spark some change in Congress?
Re: (Score:2)
they own the company, mostly for the purposes of having these patents. Not really a proxy war anymore.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
Um MS started this. Read up at Groklaw. Basically Moto sent a proposal around 2010 I think, I forget exactly. They wanted 2.25% (as a starting point for negotiations, esp since MS doesn't have any FRAND patents, normally companies license at a much lower rate but that lower rate is due to cross licensing of standard patents or other patents essential to the device from both sides).
MS didn't enter negotiations, they went to ITC and complained, and then alleged that Moto is not metting it's FRAND obligations. Then Moto sued in Germany. Germany ruled in their favor initially and imposed a ban. MS went to a seattle judge, who basically says he can overrule the Germany court, lifted the Ban, and says He'll set a fair and resonable price. I believe he ruled this way because his case started before the Germany case. I still think he's on Crack that he can overrule a foreign country judge, but w/e.
Now I wish this judge wasn't as biased and would be like the judge in Wisconsin. Apple did the same thing against Moto against these Frand patents. The judge in Wisconsin saw that Apple was just using the lawsuit for leverage or if didn't agree with the price the judge set, use that price as a negotiating price after the lawsuit. She dismissed with prejudice. MS is doing the same thing. Yet Seattle judge, back yard to MS, blah blah blah.
But Moto didn't start this war. They wanted to negotiate first, MS didn't want to pay/negotiated.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... No.
First, the Wisconsin judge didn't overrule any court in Germany, nor does he have the authority to do so. He can however forbid google from starting another case in another jurisdiction to try and extort a company with a pending case in his jurisdiction.
Secondly, Germany did not make an any initial ruling. As part of cases, judges can put a TEMPORARY ban on products that are part of a patent suit to make sure that they don't infringe. Making one of these temporary bans is not a ruling, and the
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120930131752509 [groklaw.net]
Basically said they can't enforce the ban they won in Germany. If that's not the definition of overruling, I guess I'm confused. Sure Moto would have to put up bond to damage MS may suffer if they win.
Re: (Score:2)
Any percentage of total revenue is not a negotiating tactic but a blatant misuse of the standards system. A FRAND patent on wi-fi enables a wi-fi chipset to work. They should get a percentage of the chipset's value. If MS puts a better screen on a device and raises its market value, why would Google's wi-fi patent suddenly add more value? It wouldn't.
The "Non-Discriminatory" implies that the licensing costs should be the same regardless of the device it's being put into, based on the ability of the wi-f
Re: (Score:2)
And MS's way of wanting say in features in future updates to android put on phones/tablets that have licensed from MS? Or having veto power over features? For things that their Patents don't even cover.
Also: Microsoft is also demanding exorbitant licensing fees for the use of Android. Indeed, shortly after Microsoft sent Barnes & Noble a proposed licensing agreement on or about January 6, 2011, Microsoft confirmed to Barnes & Noble that it was demanding licensing fees [redacted] for each NookTM a
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft supposedly gets x% cut of all android phones.
Turnabout is fair play.
The patent wars are a horrendus, hideous thing. My only hope is that they bring all the big tech companies so much pain that they eventually clamor to have the ridiculousness that is software patents eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Several, Samsung being one of them, would already like patents gone. They've spoken about this, but they can't really clamor because they NEED some form of patent system and the current one is so broken no one has a good way to fix it.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Actually, since Google have acquired Motorola Mobility fully; it is Google vs Microsoft.
MS is the one not leaving Android alone. They are threatening Android OEMs into patent licenses for their ridiculously stupid patent portfolio. Many top OEMs like HTC recently, Barnes and Noble etc. have succumbed and are paying more money to Microsoft than to Google for using Android.
So Google decided to acquire Motorola Mobility and take Microsoft head-on to prevent further damage to the Android ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this a proxy war at all? Microsoft, apple, oracle and SEO competitors have been suing companies working with google in conjunction - that's a proxy war. This, however, is a process that should *NEVER* be in court in the first place. The only reason it is, is because Microsoft sued Motorola , not the other way around.
The question is: why is Microsoft trying to avoid paying for FRAND patents and trying to use the court as a sledgehammer to do so in the exact same way as apple, when there is a process
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Informative)
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft? Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Hmm maybe because Microsoft is doing the SAME THING except suing manufacturers of android handsets rather than Google its-self. Then after the lawsuits were done they are charging a license fee to companies selling android. I'm guessing this suit is really intended to either offset that cost or get MS to agree to a cross license agreement.
Here you go, since you seem to have a selective memory: https://www.informationweek.com/windows/microsoft-news/microsoft-gets-android-phone-makers-to-p/231901481 [informationweek.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
Why do you think it was a bad question? Its clear based on everything Google has been doing that it is, in fact, utilizing Motorola IP as a proxy for corporate Google attacking Microsoft. That's not related to a whiny little comment or improving any public image. Its a valid discussion point. You can be assured that Google (just like any company taking an action like this) has a great number of lawyers who have been formulating the strategy.
The lawsuit, as it is, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They'll go
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Motorola is already Google's, so calling it "proxy" is a bit strange, but leaving this aside
b) MS went around shaking down Android vendors over patent issues like FAT long names
c) Said shakedown did raise quite a few questions like "What's Google doing to protect their partners?"
Under which rock did you sleep?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, I'll respond to the questions then (though someone else has already done a better job than I will, it seems).
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft?
How is it "low" to go via the division that owns the patents? The majority of the tech world knows now that Motorola Mobility = Google. It's a whole lot more straightforward than the Microsoft/SCO shenanigans that were going on.
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
"Leave them alone"? Seriously? Google are bullying Microsoft are they? By asking them to license technology for which they have the patents? It's not like they're trolli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you understand what a proxy is?
How does a patent act as a proxy for a company.
How does a company act as a proxy for itself.
There are proxy companies, proxy servers and proxy actions, etc. Do YOU understand what a proxy is? This is a proxy action. Motorola won't make any real money off the lawsuit, because the expenses will very likely be near the amount they can get out of it. Thus its a proxy lawsuit for some other motivation. The question is, what is the motivation? At $500-$750 an hour for their lawyers, they'll burn through millions or tens of millions on the lawsuit. That's sheer insanity given the likely size of the Surfa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, by extension, Apple, Google, and a few hundred more companies should also go away because of their histories or their recent and current activities. Once you are for profit you become a dirt bag. Once you grow to a certain large size, you become even worse. That is just how it is.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Once you grow to a certain large size, you become even worse. That is just how it is.
There's been a concerted effort to make it appear that way, but it's not true. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Oracle etc have been far more predatory than most.
Not every company is a bad corporate citizen, and we should recognise that with our purchasing choices. You do us all a disfavour by pretending they are.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Seriously do some research.
Re:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Insightful)
According to an engineer I know who worked for Compaq in their heyday. Compaq had developed a superior data bus in the 90's and Intel had requested access to it so they could optimize their chips to utilize it. They signed the NDA and several months later Intel introduced a motherboard with the bus integrated. Copmaq threatened to sue if they didn't pull the board or license the technology. Intel said go ahead and sue...Oh by the way we will no longer sell you CPU's. Compaq licensed the tech to Intel free of charge.
Microsoft did something similar to Citrix [scribd.com] and STAC Electronics. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's sad that what you say is true. It's even sadder that people just accept the status quo.
That said, you'll not find a lot of companies that have sunk as low as Microsoft. Yeah, there are companies that have done worse things, but you don't find them on every Main Street in America.
Re: (Score:3)
Other than recording shit that people were screaming at the top of their lungs while driving by...
What exactly has Google done?
Re: (Score:3)
Demanding more than FRAND costs?
Re: (Score:2)
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
Actually, this is the funniest thing about all the righteous indignation against Google in this whole discussion. This wasn't actually a lawsuit by Motorola against Microsoft. This was a lawsuit by Microsoft against Motorola for Motorola licensing a patent they owned on the standard market rate and not the rate Microsoft wished to pay. In other words Microsoft sued Motorola; not the other way round
Re: (Score:2)
Err, who said they had to *write* that?
They refused to allow Apple access that.
Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
What makes it better? are you using the win7 version?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it was invented by people rather than having existed for millions of years in nature. And it's less than 20 years old so there are likely valid patents on some of the basics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)