Microsoft Accuses Google, Motorola of Patent Misuse in Europe

Status
Not open for further replies.

zankuto

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2010
21
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]jdog2pt0[/nom]"regulators issued a warning for businesses to stop suing one another over patents"Can it be.....No....Maybe....[/citation]
A My little pony site for the image host? Not even going to go there. But I agree the first post comment is more ingenious than all of the lawyers for the big tech companies put together.
 
G

Guest

Guest
What about all the deals Microsoft already force the various Android OEMs to make with them using their patent pool? I guess that now that they have a steady income from those, making what - $10 for every android device sold? - they think they can play innocent and pretend Google and Apple are the ones using their patents to harm their competitors. Not to mention that I've never actually seen Google initiating an attack against either MS or Apple with their patents, (unless perhaps you want to count the case Motorola brought against Apple before its acquisition by Google.)
 

maxwebb

Distinguished
Dec 11, 2010
29
0
18,580
0
At that time, regulators issued a warning for businesses to stop suing one another over patents.
seriously? WARNED against protecting your property? now would be the time to create a startup pharmaceutical company to replicate as many drugs as you can. that way you can sell them at an extremely discounted cost whereby taking over market share... since you didn't have to spend the billions of dollars in research to patent the drug yourself.
 

bystander

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2009
322
0
18,940
4
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Funny how M$ does not like the taste of it's own medicine :)RIP Netscape anyone ?[/citation]
You are assuming they are asking the same price per patent use. What if MS is asking 1 cent per patent use while Goggle is asking for 10 cents per use?

I have a good feeling Goggle is trying to charge higher rates for their patents, because they have much fewer patents.
 

jdog2pt0

Distinguished
May 28, 2009
86
0
18,610
10
[citation][nom]zankuto[/nom]A My little pony site for the image host? Not even going to go there. But I agree the first post comment is more ingenious than all of the lawyers for the big tech companies put together.[/citation]

I pulled the image from google images. Had I paid attention to where it was coming from, I may have looked elsewhere for it.
 

ericburnby

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
363
0
18,930
0
Google is playing games here. They don't like H.264 which is what Motorola is suing MS over. So Motorola charges high rates for H.264 which makes in un-attractive for companies to include H.264 support in their software. This works out well for Google who are promoting their own standard. There's an agenda going on here that has nothing to do with fair licensing fees.

Motorola thinks the license fee for their H.264 patent should be 2.25% of the cost of a MS license PLUS 2.25% of the device it runs on. Seriously Motorola?

Let's say I go to the gas station to buy premium for my Mustang GT. I pay a certain amount of taxes on my gasoline. Next to me a Ferrari pulls up. As soon as he arrives the price on the pump jumps, since the gas taxes are based partly on the cost of the vehicle that uses it. So I pay $3.00 per gallon for my Mustang, but the Ferrari driver pays $6.00 per gallon for the same gas, just because it's going into a more expensive car.

This is what Motorola/Google thinks is fair. It's the same patent and it's part of Windows. Yet when you install that copy of Windows on a more expensive machine, Motorola thinks they should get more money.

And people think this is OK? Oh yeah, I forgot. When we're talking about Microsoft or Apple companies can do whatever they want and it's acceptable.
 

wifiwolf

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2009
73
0
18,580
0
@ericburnby

On the other hand I think it's better to charge a percentage than a fixed value for these devices. That 10$ for each device MS is charging implies that manufacturers are getting almost nothing when selling low end devices and even more because low end already means low profit.
 

bystander

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2009
322
0
18,940
4
[citation][nom]wifiwolf[/nom]@ericburnbyOn the other hand I think it's better to charge a percentage than a fixed value for these devices. That 10$ for each device MS is charging implies that manufacturers are getting almost nothing when selling low end devices and even more because low end already means low profit.[/citation]

MS is not charging a flat fee. They are charging fees that on average end up being $10 per device.
 

junixophobia

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2011
63
0
18,580
0
So M$ thinks its ok if others would swallow the bitter red pills of license but would object if they are offered the same... Suck it M$ and hope you choke on your own vomit
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]maxwebb[/nom]seriously? WARNED against protecting your property? now would be the time to create a startup pharmaceutical company to replicate as many drugs as you can. that way you can sell them at an extremely discounted cost whereby taking over market share... since you didn't have to spend the billions of dollars in research to patent the drug yourself.[/citation]

i believe that pharmaceuticals should be all government funded, and they would not be allowed to sell the products over the cost of production... its sick how much they make off people who need the drugs to live. this way they get research $, and we pay it through taxes, and not through just the people who need it. this is a world benefiting idea, not a charge only those who need it. (us military has 2 trillion budget, can you tell me 100 billion of that cant go to drug research?)

but protecting their property isn't what they do... what they do is buy the patents, they buy the rights to own the idea. i honestly think a company should be allowed to buy ideas from people with out the means to produce their idea. but i think if that company folds it shouldn't be a patent grap, those should go public domain.

[citation][nom]ericburnby[/nom]Google is playing games here. They don't like H.264 which is what Motorola is suing MS over. So Motorola charges high rates for H.264 which makes in un-attractive for companies to include H.264 support in their software. This works out well for Google who are promoting their own standard. There's an agenda going on here that has nothing to do with fair licensing fees.Motorola thinks the license fee for their H.264 patent should be 2.25% of the cost of a MS license PLUS 2.25% of the device it runs on. Seriously Motorola?Let's say I go to the gas station to buy premium for my Mustang GT. I pay a certain amount of taxes on my gasoline. Next to me a Ferrari pulls up. As soon as he arrives the price on the pump jumps, since the gas taxes are based partly on the cost of the vehicle that uses it. So I pay $3.00 per gallon for my Mustang, but the Ferrari driver pays $6.00 per gallon for the same gas, just because it's going into a more expensive car.This is what Motorola/Google thinks is fair. It's the same patent and it's part of Windows. Yet when you install that copy of Windows on a more expensive machine, Motorola thinks they should get more money.And people think this is OK? Oh yeah, I forgot. When we're talking about Microsoft or Apple companies can do whatever they want and it's acceptable.[/citation]

ok, lets assume this, motorola wants to charge 2% (2.25% is a harder number to work with, and more or less insinificant, and 2.25% for ms pattent price comes to 22.5 cents) for its patents, Microsoft wants a flat 10$
lets say phone as an example

200$ phone, 4$Mo 10$ Mi
400$ phone, 8$Mo 10$ Mi
500$ phone, 10$Mo 10$Mi

over this is where motorola gets more per phone

unless you are discribeing their beef wrong... and if they are asking for 2.25% from the net proffit, than they are asking from purely the money the company gains per product, a far better than a flat 10$ for everything rate... the more you over charge the most it costs you.

also you said premium for the gass... why would you want to elect to pay almost 50 cents more per gallon of what is basically the same thing as regular?

 

back_by_demand

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2009
1,599
0
19,730
0
[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]Funny how M$ does not like the taste of it's own medicine :)RIP Netscape anyone ?[/citation]
Yeah, 2 wrongs don't make a right, just because MS did a bad one 15 years ago does not mean it's suddenly the Wild West for the whole industry, everyone just needs to chill the f**k out and stop litigating
 

watcha

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2007
950
0
18,930
0
Why is everyone comparing the fee Microsoft charges for licensing Android (numerous patents) to the Motorola patent.

The Motorola patent is FRAND - so it has a different standard than the Microsoft patents, which aren't. Microsoft doesn't have to be fair or reasonable at all. Motorola does.

In my opinion Microsoft is actually right in criticising Google and Motorola for not coming out and clarifying that they will not seek injunctions over FRAND patents. Apple and Microsoft have both confirmed they will never do this, and it is essential for future standards development.

[citation][nom]wifiwolf[/nom]@ericburnbyOn the other hand I think it's better to charge a percentage than a fixed value for these devices. That 10$ for each device MS is charging implies that manufacturers are getting almost nothing when selling low end devices and even more because low end already means low profit.[/citation]

A low end device is cheaper because it has worse hardware, not because it doesn't require said technology. The customer is paying for the bump in spec. Much like the plastic which constitutes the case on the phone may be constant between both low and high end devices. The price charged is always the choice of the manufacturer anyway - if their costs go up, they can always charge more - they don't have to get 'almost nothing'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
E Streaming Video & TVs 4
abdabra Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
L Streaming Video & TVs 3
chilly601 Streaming Video & TVs 2
L Streaming Video & TVs 3
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 1
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 1
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
CherlynnLow Streaming Video & TVs 2
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 3
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 15
Jill Scharr Streaming Video & TVs 7
G Streaming Video & TVs 0
Marshall Honorof Streaming Video & TVs 9
G Streaming Video & TVs 5
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 18
Marcus Yam Streaming Video & TVs 51
exfileme Streaming Video & TVs 42

ASK THE COMMUNITY