Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wants $15 Per Android Smartphone
sfcrazy writes "Microsoft Corp has demanded that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd pay $15 for each smartphone handset it makes based on Google Inc's Android operating system. The software giant claims to own a wide range of patents used in the mobile platform. From the article: 'Samsung would likely seek to lower the payment to about $10 in exchange for a deeper alliance with Microsoft for the U.S. company's Windows platform, the Maeil Business Newspaper quoted unnamed industry officials as saying.'"
How much does Microsoft want to license Windows Phone OS? My understanding is...around $15.
So, $15 to license Windows Phone 7 with a bunch of software that Microsoft paid to develop and has to maintain along with patent licenses, or $15 to license Android that doesn't contain a single line of Microsoft code but needs the patent licenses? I'm sure their patents are worth something, but this seems a wee bit overpriced.
And the worms ate into his brain.
You obviously don't understand business nor did you read the article. This isn't a research item this is a patent item. To a company a patent is an asset that can be used in trade or to beat a competitor over the head. Research doesn't necessarily lead to great inventions and what makes us think that Microsoft invented the inventions that they now own? Lots of companies buy and sell patents just like you or I would sell a used bicycle. I have four patents and one, from a job I had more than 15 years ago, has traded hands no fewer than 8 times. Did any of the interceding owners of that patent "invent" anything? No, but they owned the rights to that patent and presumably made money by selling it.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Yes. This seems like a reasonable business choice. $15 is a ridiculous figure. I have heard that figure is what Microsoft charges for their own mobile OS. This certainly doesn't seem to be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing. I say fight too. Also, it's a little entertaining to see all the crap go down as it has been. There seems to be a massive increase in [software] patent litigation and I have to wonder when everyone playing the game will finally realize we are all better off without it.
I'm more inclined to believe Slashdot gives IBM a pass is because, unlike MS, they don't have an arrogant jackass for a CEO that goes around laughing at their competitors and intentionally crashing competitor's products at trade shows. The guy is a no-class buffoon. That's probably got a little something to do with why Slashdot seems to have a collective chip on its shoulder towards MS vs other mega-corps.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Ripping off competitors is what the patent trolls do -- they can't do, so they sue -- just like Microsoft is doing in this case. As for copying IP and waiting to be sued, there's a deeper reason why that happens: it's almost impossible to bring a product to market without infringing dozens upon dozens of completely random patents. Even if you try to play it safe and license some of the patents likely to be used against you, the licensing fees you'd have to pay would almost certainly exceed your entire product development budget! How we can expect small startups to survive in this environment is totally beyond me.
If Google is allowed to make Android available to anyone for free, then why shouldn't Microsoft be allowed to competitively price their mobile OS at $0 as well? From that point of view it costs $15 for the mobile patent licenses either way, and WP7 is thrown in for free.