Slashdot Mirror
Windows Buyers Pay Patent Tax of $21.50 ?
An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica has a story up about an estimate done by the Software Freedom Law Center of how much purchasers of Microsoft Windows are paying in 'patent taxes'. 'SFLA took the total of $4.3 billion dollars in legal costs for Microsoft from 2001 to 2004 and divided it by estimated sales of Windows XP over the same period — approximately 200 million copies — to come up with the $21.50 estimate. The organization added that North American and European customers, who pay more for Windows licenses than customers in other parts of the world, actually ended up paying more of this patent tax, and that people who pirate Windows pass their share of the tax on to paying customers.' The article goes on to point out several flaws in the study's logic. For example, the actual cost of a Windows OEM hasn't increased in the last few years; Microsoft isn't passing this cost directly on to the consumer."
Wow, what a news flash, the cost of developing software is covered by the consumers. I never would have guessed.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
1. How much of the $21.50 goes to the companies and/or individuals who hold the patents?
2. How many innovators (engineers, etc.) are employed as a result of the $21.50?
3. How much of the $21.50 is eaten up with legal fees?
I've got no problem paying a license fee as long as I am getting a significant amount of innovation for my money.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I'll admit, I only skimmed the article, but if M$ spent that much money, total, on patent legal fees, that money needs to be divided evenly against the revenue of all offered products.
Well, I guess its a good thing that I've never paid for a MS OS, or for an MS Office product.
This post written on a PC running Windows and Office XP. How did those get there? Hold on while I go look for my, erm, install disks... and just ignore that folder named "ISO-WAREZ". *flees*
There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
One counterpart to this kind of study is this argument: If you think $21.50 is a lot, just imagine how much it would cost each individual customer to negotiate and license all of the patents in question? By centralizing the negotiation and licensing, Microsoft greatly reduces the total transaction costs.
That said, I'm sure a lot of these patents are absurd software patents that Microsoft decided it was cheaper or easier to license than defeat in court.
Or is this like if we considered Windows XP was the only revenue source of Microsoft during those years? And there I thought Microsoft had quite a few products (even if you don't count the "at a loss" ones).
Which ranges from $200-$400 for a real, new license of Windows! That's between 10% and 5% depending on the version of Windows.
That you're paying a "patent tax" is nothing new. You're paying a "tax" on everything. If you've ever bought a pack of smokes you're paying into their legal fees, for instance. It's really just a cost of doing business not related to development nor profits.
.GIF files. Windows comes with a media player that can play .MP3 files. Windows natively supports TrueType fonts. How much per copy is going to make sure they're on the up-and-up with those IPs?
What I'd find more interesting is how much of the cost of Windows goes into licensning patented software. MSPAINT can read and write
More Twoson than Cupertino
Anyone find it ironic that Microsoft's legal costs have reached the size of a long int?
Does "an eternal stain on their souls" count as tax?
Blank until
We call that a 'inelastic' demand. Note that it will react to price increases, but it takes huge increses to compensate a small supply difference.
On the case of energy, if it is expensive enough people will freeze, but won't be able to buy it. That's sad, but the model works. The point is not to tell nice things, but to be able to predict what will happen.
Rethinking email