Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Microsoft Handhelds Patents Your Rights Online

Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue 278

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-scratching-the-surface dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Google Proxy War (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @09:19AM (#41979333)

    And Microsoft NEVER EVER did that... Right? Microsoft needs to go away because of all the horrible things they have done.

  • by jkrise (535370) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @09:30AM (#41979427) Journal

    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:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Informative)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @09:40AM (#41979517) Homepage Journal
    You mean that Microsoft company that taxes each android device with their FAT patent?
  • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @09:59AM (#41979649)

    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:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Informative)

    by kelemvor4 (1980226) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:11AM (#41979757)

    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:Google Proxy War (Score:5, Informative)

    by Formorian (1111751) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:14AM (#41979777)

    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?

  • by JDG1980 (2438906) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @10:23AM (#41979863)

    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).

  • Re:Google Proxy War (Score:2, Informative)

    by oh_my_080980980 (773867) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:11AM (#41980301)
    Based on what evidence? Apple has been sued left and right based on the success of the iPhone. Apple paid through the nose to use the term "iPad" only to have a Chinese company sue them because the license Apple agreed to did not cover one area in China.

    Seriously do some research.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...