[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?