Microsoft Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Motorola Mobility

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Motorola Mobility

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @06:01AM from the evil-fighting-evil dept.

judgecorp writes "Microsoft has filed a complaint with the European Commission complaining that Motorola Mobility is charging too much for use of its patented technology in phones and tablets. The complaint follows a similar one by Apple last week, and will need to be resolved by Google as it takes charge of Motorola Mobility."

148 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

That's rich by damicatz · 2012-02-22 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is coming from a company that makes a business out of extorting Android phone makers for money.
1. Re:That's rich by gstoddart · 2012-02-22 06:06 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  This is coming from a company that makes a business out of extorting Android phone makers for money.
  Oh, that's just a hobby. :-P
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:That's rich by miknix · 2012-02-22 06:22 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Obligatory
  http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/4E2A8848-5738-45B1-A659-AD7473899D7D.html
3. Re:That's rich by Dupple · 2012-02-22 06:24 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit
  Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.
  That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  
  --
  Watch those corners
4. Re:That's rich by damicatz · 2012-02-22 06:30 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Microsoft charges Android phone makers $5-$15 PER PHONE for only a handful of patents.
5. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You may want to check those figures again.
  http://mobile.twitter.com/cdaffara/status/169836817376493568
  "B&N lawsuit: MS asks $7.50-$12.50 per Android device = 3.8%-6.3% of Nook price. And they contest Moto 2.25% request."
  
  http://www.geekwire.com/2012/judge-microsofts-android-tactics-hard-bargaining-patent-misuse
6. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:35 · Score: 0
  
  But they're not FRAND patents. There's a difference
7. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:35 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  And those fees are for non-FRAND patents.
  Seriously, understanding the FRAND portion of these stories is very important to understanding why Motorola is in the wrong. Regardless of what you think of Microsoft, Motorola is abusing FRAND patents which is wrong.
8. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Is MS actually paying a license fee based on the retail cost of the laptop or are you just repeating an example in the article? MS does not build and sell laptops so how would MS and Motorola know how much each is selling for at any given time?
9. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:38 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Your post is meaningless without context. What is the quality of the 2,300 patents vs the 50 that Moto holds? One of Motorola's patents could be worth 10 times all of the 2300 patents MS has put together. Just going by raw numbers is disingenuous.
10. Re:That's rich by damicatz · 2012-02-22 06:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Sorry but I still don't see a problem. Microsoft and Apple are simply getting a taste of their own medicine. It's just desserts as far as I'm concerned.
11. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  True, but H.264 is a standard and comes with a patent pool. Exorbitant costs to implement a worldwide industry standard is not a good thing.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
12. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yet no one has complained about MS's Android licensing terms to the EU...
13. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 06:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Ew, I feel dirty even looking at that website name.
  Reading that for information on Microsoft is like reading Glenn Beck for information on Obama.
  It is abject partisan crap set to an agenda.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
14. Re:That's rich by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-22 06:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  Not all patents have equal value. Numbers alone do not tell the whole story.
  And I find it completely justifiable on Motorola's part, given Microsoft's treatment of them.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
15. Re:That's rich by jdgeorge · 2012-02-22 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Microsoft is an MPEG LA licensor. Motorola is not.
  MPEG LA claims that Theora and VP8 infringe on its members' patents, and implies it will take legal action against users of those codecs.
16. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  *shrug* I don't see why you're bringing Google into the mix. Google isn't currently going to change Motorola's patent licensing practices. :)
17. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  FRAND does not have to be a specific dollar figure to be fair. Maybe others are paying less cash to Motorola to use the patents BUT sharing something else with them of non cash value? They could have an overall sharing agreement between them that involves cash and other things. I do not know specific FRAND rules so maybe I'm wrong.
18. Re:That's rich by poetmatt · 2012-02-22 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's even coming from a company that charges 3x as much for it's "patented technology" and claims it covers all technology without outlining what "all technology" is defined as.
19. Re:That's rich by poetmatt · 2012-02-22 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  What the fuck do you make up? Go back to microsoft-imaginationland please. This is not how it works.
  http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120213092754823
  Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.
20. Re:That's rich by kelemvor4 · 2012-02-22 06:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit
  Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.
  That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  If moto owns the patent they can charge whatever they like for it (so long as they charge everyone the same). They don't have to justify the price to anyone. If MS or Apple decides the price is too high, they can opt to not license the patent (and of course not use whatever is the subject of that patent). Just because MS and Apple may have decided to make their mobile phone business dependent on someone else's tech does not mean that other tech must be a particular price.
  
  OTOH If MS wins this one, I may file suit against BMW because I think that the 6 series convertible should be closer to $200.00 than what it is today. I'll keep my eye out!
21. Re:That's rich by tragedy · 2012-02-22 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  2,300 patents on H.264? I'm pretty sure you can implement H.264 in less lines of code than that.
22. Re:That's rich by icebike · 2012-02-22 06:57 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  There are a lot of things for which MS has patents (allegedly, since every settlement is under NDA) and are using them to demand the $7.50 from B&N and all other Android devices. Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.
  Being a standard doesn't mean much when MS patent prices are argued. So why should it mean anything now?
  If you can't see thru this blatant attempt to sway public opinion while at the same time hiding its double dealing via holding foreign companies, and playing divide and conqueror together with Apple, then you learned nothing at all about Microsoft in the last two decades.
  And which MS trolls modded GP to zero, when it is clearly directly on point?
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
23. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 07:04 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The problem is that if this is allowed, all the companies will start suing each other over technology that they previously added to the standard on the promise of FRAND.
  Eg. Look at the large number companies in the H.264 patent list. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf
  Don't forget that MS has patents in the patent pool and a zillion other patents not in it. They can easily turn around and sue everyone in sight for exorbitant amounts for implementing standards.
  And it will happen not just with H.264 but everything else too.
  Imagine Nokia suing Motorola and Apple for $50 per phone for implementing LTE (a standard). You'd expect Apple and Motorola to rollout their own 4G network and towers?
  Or MS suing Google over patents on Google docs importing MS Office documents (OOXML).
  
  --
  This space for rent.
24. Re:That's rich by miknix · 2012-02-22 07:06 · Score: 2
  
  I first saw the link for this article here at slashdot. I also saw it being reposted a couple of times since then and being modded informative or insightful. Personally, I don't see what changed since then so I thought in reposting the link. Futhermore and despite your biasing, information is still information even if you don't agree with it.
25. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 07:11 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  >Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.
  Microsoft did not promise patent immunity over Fat32, which became a defacto standard.
  Careful what you wish for, it may be granted.
  This will open a Pandora's box on technology used to implement standards.
  Nokia has the most patents on LTE which are deemed standards essential.
  http://www.itproportal.com/2012/02/22/nokia-samsung-qualcomm-hold-most-lte-patents-claims-study/
  What if they sue Apple, Motorola for $50 per device based on Motorola getting away with this?
  Will they roll out their own towers with their own 4G technology around the world?
  
  --
  This space for rent.
26. Re:That's rich by voidphoenix · 2012-02-22 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Does the number of patents matter as much as their relative importance? If the 2,300 patents are similar to the ones MS was trying to strongarm B&N to license, they're not worth even the 2 cents. But if the 50 patents are for key technologies, they might even be worth more than $22.50.
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
27. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  If you think Google is any better feel free to ask Dell/Force10, Brocade, Cisco and Juniper how they enjoy being back-stabbed and threatened every time it comes to negotiate next year's support contracts. Google can (and they are) backstabbing assholes, you just don't see from the outside.
28. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  >information is still information even if you don't agree with it.
  Glenn Beck's information is also still information. But it is repulsive to someone with half a brain.
  Anyway I fail to see how that link is even relevant here.
  Tech companies have a lot of failures. Looking at everything as a conspiracy is a sign of being biased.
  Apple had it's own Copland which promised a lot and turned out to be vaporware.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)
  
  --
  This space for rent.
29. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  There is no set ammount in FRAND. I personally think $100 to everyone for a patent is fair.
30. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Where is FRAND defined; do you know of any site which offers a legal definition of what the patent licensor and licensee both understand and accept that FRAND means? E.g. USPTO or EPO or ISO?
31. Re:That's rich by Gadget_Guy · 2012-02-22 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  There are a lot of things for which MS has patents (allegedly, since every settlement is under NDA) and are using them to demand the $7.50 from B&N and all other Android devices. Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.
  First of all, a lot of Microsoft's patents have been seen because they have not always been settled and have gone to court. While Microsoft may have some reasonable patents, but from what we have seen of the ones listed in court they have a lot that are complete crap too.
  Secondly, FAT32 and ExFat are not standards. Only FAT is a standard. FAT32 is a patented extension to this, and ExFat is a proprietory file system. MTP Basic is a proposed standard, and is available royalty free.
32. Re:That's rich by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-22 07:57 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The case with Apple is a little more complex. While Apple does complain about Motorola not offering FRAND terms, their contention is the licensing fees in their case (3G/LTE) were paid already as the functionality was part of 3G chips they bought from Qualcomm. The nature of these chips and the Apple-Qualcomm agreements are the factors to consider. If these chips were stock chips that Qualcomm sells to everyone, most likely this usage is covered by Qualcomm's license with Motorola. If they were custom chips, then the details of the Apple-Qualcomm agreement matter. As a parallel, the first two generations of iPhones used Samsung designed ARM processors. Most likely Apple did not have to enter into separate licensing agreements with ARM as Samsung's licenses with ARM would have covered it. The A4 and A5 processors designed by Apple and made by Samsung would require separate agreements.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
33. Re:That's rich by miknix · 2012-02-22 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway I fail to see how that link is even relevant here.
  It is in the context of parent's Joke.
  
  Tech companies have a lot of failures. Looking at everything as a conspiracy is a sign of being biased.
  Conspiracy? It is just a pretty good sum of past Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. How is this a conspiracy? Is the (still running) fine imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission also a conspiracy?
  
  Apple had it's own Copland which promised a lot and turned out to be vaporware.
  And I believe it! Now is this motive to mod you down straight away and accusing you of following a particular agenda? Because that's exactly what was done to me.
34. Re:That's rich by Gadget_Guy · 2012-02-22 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  One of Motorola's patents could be worth 10 times all of the 2300 patents MS has put together.
  They are not Microsoft's patents, they are the patents that Microsoft pay 29 companies to use - although I am sure that one of those companies is Microsoft, so they effectively pay themselves! From the article:
  As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms.
35. Re:That's rich by icebike · 2012-02-22 08:02 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but once the SD association adopted Fat32 and exFat, its a standard by any useful definition.
  https://www.sdcard.org/consumers/sdxc_capabilities/using_sdxc
  
  The exFAT file system used for SDXC is available on Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP (SP1 or later) with exFAT file system update (KB955704) available from the Microsoft Download Center.
  Any SD card / MicroSD card over 32gig requires SDXC, which is exFat. So an entire line of hardware is tied to a Microsoft Patent. An ENTIRE LINE OF STORAGE DEVICES!!!
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
36. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit
  Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.
  That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  I think the deal is that those $0.02 patents are trash and they don't want to charge more because they may get taken to court over them. The real patents are the ones that they charge money for, like those $22.50 patents. It is all about cost analysis.
  Now how they want to license it based on the cost of the product is debatable.
37. Re:That's rich by Gadget_Guy · 2012-02-22 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.
  Isn't the licencing of patents the way Motorola is doing also incompatible with open source?
38. Re:That's rich by jader3rd · 2012-02-22 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If MS or Apple decides the price is too high, they can opt to not license the patent (and of course not use whatever is the subject of that patent).
  So you think that they should not implement the standard and roll their own solution?
39. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Motorola didn't contribute its patents to the pool. Do you believe they should be required to provide them to the pool regardless of their consent simply because its a standard? What prevents others from making new standards with the sole intent of getting free use of their patents?
  Personally I'd like to see all software patents die a firey death but that's not the reality we live in today.
40. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Even if you consider it Fair and Reasonable, it's certainly not Non-Discriminatory. The whole point of agreeing to FRAND licensing is that your patent becomes part of an agreed upon monopoly.
41. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 09:00 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know why, but I can't help but cringe when I see the word "imply" misused like that.
42. Re:That's rich by maccodemonkey · 2012-02-22 09:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No they don't. The patent is a FRAND patent. A condition for Motorola entering their patents into the 3G standard is that they have to become FRAND, which means they can't charge whatever they want. If they wanted to charge whatever they wanted, they shouldn't have put the patents into the 3G pool.
  That's what all the arguing and suing is about. Microsoft (and Apple) are arguing that Motorola is ignoring their FRAND/3G pool obligations and attempting to charge more than they previously promised when they made these patents part of 3G.
  Antitrust comes into the picture when Apple and Microsoft argue that Motorola is abusing FRAND patents that they had previously agreed on a price for to try to force everyone out of the 3G market illegally. And given Motorola's current decline, it's not all that unreasonable to think they might make their last stand as a SCO-esk patent troll.
43. Re:That's rich by msobkow · 2012-02-22 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Both Theora and VP8 were developed in the open, with source available.
  MPEG-LA should have been approaching the developers when the patent violations were first found, so they could be licensed or the infringing code removed/rewritten.
  Now that they're moving forward and taking a significant share of the market, MPEG-LA wants to rewrite history and claim patent infringement at this late date, now that there is money to be sued for.
  Too bad.
  As with a trademark, if you don't defend it in a timely fashion, you should lose your patent if you're not policing it's licensing and use BEFORE there is money to be made. Such an approach would ELIMINATE the infamous "submarine patent" so many trolls like to use, and save all KINDS of industries hundreds of millions if not billions in extortion fees.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
44. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it's great, a broken system will collapse under its own weight!
45. Re:That's rich by UnknowingFool · 2012-02-22 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Good point on the license cost. For MS to claim that Motorola is being unreasonable, there has to be a direct comparison to other licensees. If Motorola is charging MS much more than other licensees without justification, then MS is right. If Motorola is charging about the same, then it should be a non-issue.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
46. Re:That's rich by symbolset · 2012-02-22 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  All these companies are in all-out patent war with each other already anyway. I don't see why Moto should unilaterally disarm so Microsoft can kill them. Microsoft is upset because their Android mugging has been interrupted. Boo hoo.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
47. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  >Now is this motive to mod you down straight away and accusing you of following a particular agenda? Because that's exactly what was done to me.
  Relax, moderation is not the be all and end all of Slashdot. Anyway, I accused the website you linked of following a particular agenda, not you. Read through the articles and if you don't find an agenda, then heaven save you.
  The article you linked talks about vaporware, how is it a good sum of past MS anti-competitive behavior?
  And if you think linking to Roughly Drafted is similar to linking to Wikipedia... well then I have nothing to say.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
48. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  They declared them essential to the h.264 standard, and thereby obligated themselves to the standard's FRAND pledge. But they did NOT contribute the patents to the pool, so that they are in charge of licensing the patents on a onesie basis. Still have promised to be FRAND, and if ANYBODY claims they couldn't negotiate terms that ARE FRAND, they can sue.
  What they actually get depends on a court's notion of FAIR, etc. By Microsoft's logic, Motorola is claiming that their patents are worth many times more than all the others put together; I can't see how that works out well for them.
  As for all patents dying: in the case of standards such as GSM, CDMA, wifi, video, etc., it'd be damned hard to get firms like Moto to put in the engineering work on something hugely complex and interconnected, with a virtual guarantee that your competitors, who DIDN'T bear any of the cost, would use your work for free, gaining a cost advantage by depriving you of any compensation for your effort. The problem appears to be what an actual lawyer would call patent abuse, not the EFF type of concerns over Lodsys and their ilk.
49. Re:That's rich by ckaminski · 2012-02-22 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you've never been in a position to observe someone invent X, then have Microsoft reps walk in and tell the Veeps that "Oh, we'll have Y-Clone of X in 6 months and throw in a 5% discount on your Server licenses" and have the purchase of X cancelled. Low and Behold, Y-Clone never gets made.
  
  This was the perennial war Microsoft waged against Unix with their NT5 (I can't remember the fucking code name now). Cairo!
50. Re:That's rich by rtfa-troll · 2012-02-22 10:34 · Score: 1
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it hold
  Or in other words, Microsoft is engaging in predatory pricing in order to push their own standard forward. This is not something that should be held in Microsoft's benefit. Almost any other company would end up with their employees in jail.
  
  --
  =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
51. Re:That's rich by Gadget_Guy · 2012-02-22 10:49 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, but once the SD association adopted Fat32 and exFat, its a standard by any useful definition.
  I can see how you might think that, but Microsoft have always promoted the filesystem as a proprietary licensable format. That it was chosen to be part if the SD spec does not change this. Rather, it just makes SDXC format a proprietary based system.
  In fact, the use of ExFat format was noted as a compatibility problem in the wikipedia entry for SDXC:
  SDXC cards are pre-formatted with Microsoft's proprietary and patented exFAT file system, which the host device might not support. Since Microsoft does not publish the specifications of exFAT and its use requires a non-free license, many alternative or older operating systems do not support exFAT for technical or legal reasons.
  No mention of a standard there.
52. Re:That's rich by oxdas · 2012-02-22 11:04 · Score: 2
  
  This can be difficult to ascertain. Take, for example, the spat between Apple and Nokia last year. Apple approached Nokia about licensing their FRAND patents. Nokia responded that its FRAND prices were based on patent cross-licensing deals (after all, to Nokia cross-licensing and market stability is the reason for contributing to FRAND in the first place). Since Apple didn't have any relevant patents, they would accept Apple software patents in lieu of hardware patents. Apple responded that that Nokia was undervaluing their software patents vis-a-vis Nokia's hardware patents and refused. In the end, they settled for no patent cross-licensing, but Apple paying a higher than "FRAND" rate. So, the big question here is what is a patent cross-licensing deal worth? Apple and Microsoft are saying very little; while Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, etc. are saying that these cross-license deals are worth much more to them than the cash. Who is right? It is important to remember why a company like Motorola contributes to FRAND in the first place. It isn't about the royalties (which aren't that much money), but about market stability. It is an agreement that all the relevant parties are going to compete with their products and services and not in the court room. So, cross-licensing is what they really want from Apple and Microsoft, but nobody knows how to value a software patent compared to a fundamental hardware patent.
53. Re:That's rich by andydread · 2012-02-22 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  When you start a patent war with open source and players in that game have something at stake you shouldn't be surprised when they bite back. Microsoft has vowed to use software-patents to drive open source out of the marketplace
  Now, when you cut through the BS and look at the math....
  According to B&N for 3 software-patents Microsoft is attempting to charge them anywhere between $5-15 per device. Motorola is charging 22.50 for 50 software-patents. So lets do the math shall we. Let's start with Microsoft's low price per device for 3 patents. 5/3 = $1.66 for each Microsoft software-patent at the cheapest. For 50 software-patents from Motorola? 22.50/50 = $0.45 per device Now lets look at the high side Microsoft software-patents at $15 so 15/3 = $5 per Microsoft software-patent. Now lets look at Motorola on the high side its $45 per device for 50 software-patents. 45/50 = $0.90 per patent. So I would say Microsoft is charging an arm and a leg for software-patents on open source software while Motorola is saying to MS since you charge that much for your software-patents you MUST pay us a fair price for ours. And compared to Microsoft's prices, Motorola's prices are quite fair. So again people are totally misled by Microsoft.
54. Re:That's rich by icebike · 2012-02-22 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  What?
  Your own quote pretty much admits there is a standard. Accepted by the manufacturing association, documented on wiki, and yet you hold out because the word "standard" followed by some random digits does not appear?
  What makes a standard? An act of law? A UN declaration? Or simply because people start acting like it exists?
  Your Clue: Its the latter.
  You will note I said "its a standard by any useful definition". Which it is. Precisely because of the situation you've documented.
  Lets face it, Microsoft has stolen a march on the entire SD card industry, by getting them to accept exFat and previously Fat32, and pre-format every card sold with one of those formats, and refusing to ship of any ext2/3/4 drivers in windows machines. With every cellphone and tablet only accepting fat32/exfat, you are pretty much forced to use it.
  Who else needs to bless it before it becomes a standard in your eyes? The Pope?
  The beautiful thing about standards is there is so many to choose from.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
55. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 11:11 · Score: 0
  
  This is coming from a company that makes a business out of extorting Android phone makers for money.
  It's interesting how you use the word 'extorting', it obviously isn't extorting at all, unless you don't understand the meaning of the word. Certain patents are required to be offered under FRAND terms and if Motorola isn't playing ball then it absolutely is cause for a complaint...oh but of course this is Microsoft so that means it's not ok.
56. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  Motorola didn't contribute its patents to the pool. Do you believe they should be required to provide them to the pool regardless of their consent simply because its a standard?
  Companies that hold patents essential to industry standards are obligated to license those patents on FRAND terms, so yes.
  
  What prevents others from making new standards with the sole intent of getting free use of their patents?
  They don't have to be offered for free, just under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
  
  Personally I'd like to see all software patents die a firey death but that's not the reality we live in today.
  These aren't necessarily even software patents, they could just as easily be hardware patents for things such as LTE.
57. Re:That's rich by andydread · 2012-02-22 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  GOOD. They should sue the shit out of each other over FRAND software-patents. Until standards consortiums disallow the use of software-patents for supposedly "open" standards then I will grab the popcorn. MIcrosoft had no problem suing the shit out of anyone producing any successful open source product and shaking them down for a "Linux license" Just ask TomTom, Buffalo, Amazon, and a litany of other victims trying to produce open source products or in the case of Amazon using Linux servers then later kindle Android and Linux patents. They started this whole mess. Microsoft even said that if software-patents existed back when they were growing they would not have been able to become what they are today. And now they want to sue people for writing code that "displays a background image in a browser after text is rendered." Open standards should not be patent encumbered period.
58. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Any SD card / MicroSD card over 32gig requires SDXC, which is exFat. So an entire line of hardware is tied to a Microsoft Patent. An ENTIRE LINE OF STORAGE DEVICES!!!
  No reason you can't reformat it to a different filesystem, in fact if you want to use it in something like a Pandora you must reformat it to use ext3 (or something else Pandora supports). So no, they aren't tied to a Microsoft patent.
59. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  but nobody knows how to value a software patent compared to a fundamental hardware patent.
  It all boils down to logic, you could implement the software process in hardware if you really wanted to, it's generally not practical, but you could. Just like the way in which apple has built hardware for audience's logic into their iphone4s processor.
60. Re:That's rich by icebike · 2012-02-22 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  And then what? Put that in your Cellphone/mp3 player and you get nothing!
  Some Android devices will handle NTFS, but that puts us right back in Microsoft's pocket.
  The entire line of SD products are, by one means or another, tied to microsoft patents. Simply hand waiving it away doesn't make it so.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
61. Re:That's rich by kelemvor4 · 2012-02-22 11:49 · Score: 1
  
  If MS or Apple decides the price is too high, they can opt to not license the patent (and of course not use whatever is the subject of that patent).
  So you think that they should not implement the standard and roll their own solution?
  I didn't say that, but that is certainly one of their options.
62. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 12:00 · Score: 2
  
  If moto owns the patent they can charge whatever they like for it (so long as they charge everyone the same). They don't have to justify the price to anyone.
  You're not aware of what the 'R' in FRAND stands for?
63. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  And then what? Put that in your Cellphone/mp3 player and you get nothing!
  Not if you have a cellphone/mp3 player that supports ext3, no reason you can't mount it on a rooted Android phone, or an N900. If your cellphone/mp3 player doesn't support ext3 that's their problem.
  
  Simply hand waiving it away doesn't make it so.
  Simply ignoring the fact that there is no reason devices cannot just support filesystems like ext3 in which case you don't have to have anything to do with Microsoft doesn't mean they are tied to MS patents.
64. Re:That's rich by icebike · 2012-02-22 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please stop being such a troll.
  Your mom is going to root her android phone, or buy one not even sold in this country to avoid the Microsoft Tax?
  Face it, you are arguing absurdities. Microsoft OWNS SD card space. Period.
  How do you get your camera to read/write ext3?
  Just stop please, you've already made an idiot of yourself. Anything further would be pointless.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
65. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 12:43 · Score: 1
  
  Oh please stop being such a troll.
  Presentation of basic facts is clearly not trolling, moreover if you really believed i was a troll the obvious thing that would be done by anyone with any intelligence would be to not reply, however you continue to reply so you're characterization of me as a troll is obviously you just lying, even you don't believe it.
  
  Your mom is going to root her android phone, or buy one not even sold in this country to avoid the Microsoft Tax?
  I didn't suggest that, fool. Read the post, i said there is nothing to stop companies using ext3 instead of exFAT, you having trouble understanding that?
  
  How do you get your camera to read/write ext3?
  That depends on whether your camera supports it, buy a camera that does, it's a free and open spec yet most choose not to implement it, nothing stopping them though.
  
  Just stop please, you've already made an idiot of yourself. Anything further would be pointless.
  lol...too butthurt that your little anti-microsoft rant is so easily debunked by the fact that ext3 is perfectly possible yet most devices (non-microsoft) simply choose not to support it. The fact is that SDXC cards are not locked to an MS filesystem and some devices that will work with them don't even support MS' filesystem, they in fact require an alternative like ext3, examples of such devices are Pandora and N900.
66. Re:That's rich by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like regular salesman pitch to me, nothing specific about Microsoft there. Everyone knows lawyers, used car salesmen and marketers are full of BS. That's a job qualification.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
67. Re:That's rich by hairyfeet · 2012-02-22 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention no matter how many here say "Fight teh power" we ALL know how this is gonna end, it'll end the same way it always ends...the big guys cross license which makes sure the little guys can't get in. Try making a new X86 chip and see how far you get, or hell any new thing where the big dogs are playing and you'll find they cross license up the ass so good luck getting in there. personally i think both patents and copyrights should return to the original numbers set by the founding fathers if not having even shorter terms but acting like this is one bad guy against a good guy is bullshit because when it comes to patents they are ALL bad all the way down.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
68. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-22 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  Good point on the license cost. For MS to claim that Motorola is being unreasonable, there has to be a direct comparison to other licensees. If Motorola is charging MS much more than other licensees without justification, then MS is right.
  No, that's the 'ND' in FRAND, non-discriminatory. The topic of whether they are being unreasonable falls under the Fair (EU mostly) and Reasonable, which you can read about here.
69. Re:That's rich by Solandri · 2012-02-22 15:23 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that if this is allowed, all the companies will start suing each other over technology that they previously added to the standard on the promise of FRAND.
  The flip side of this is that if those companies with F/RAND patents aren't allowed to use them to help them negotiate for better terms on non-F/RAND patents, then F/RAND is dead. No company in its right mind will want to license its patents under F/RAND. They will all want to negotiate each patent license individually, making standards virtually impossible to set.
  
  The only attraction of F/RAND to a patent-holder is that by having your patent in the standard, you are guaranteed royalties on millions of products sold. The moment holding onto your patents becomes more valuable than that, as Apple is trying to establish by trying to get competitors banned from the market, F/RAND is dead.
70. Re:That's rich by Gadget_Guy · 2012-02-22 17:11 · Score: 1
  
  Your own quote pretty much admits there is a standard.
  No, it did not. Here is the test: do you have to pay to license the exFAT file system? Yes. Do you have to pay to license the SD format? Yes. Does the author of the file system call it a standard? No, it calls it "our exFAT file system".. If Microsoft did proclaim it as a standard, would that be good enough for the Slashdot community? No. We tend to like our standards to be maintained by a standards body, not an individual company and especially not Microsoft.
  But as I said before, I can see your argument as to why you might informally refer to it as a standard, but it seems a bit rich to arbitrarily define a proprietary, commercial specification as a standard (when the author's have not called it that nor have them submitted it to a standards body), only to then accuse the company of forcing it onto the industry. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people at the SD Card Association for choosing a patent encumbered file system. Or the device makers for choosing the SD format.
71. Re:That's rich by oxdas · 2012-02-22 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  I should have limited myself to this specific situation. Apple is a disruptive technology in smartphones. It's disruptive not because it is a new idea, I can't think of a single element of the Apple ecosystem that didn't exist prior to the iPhone, but rather because they are an industry outsider (which took the idea of the smartphone and did it better than the insiders). From the perspective of a company like Motorola, FRAND is good because it causes all their competitors to swap patent agreements and prevent mutually assured destruction in the court room. They might make a little money from the patents, but their business is hardware, not research. Enter Apple, which does not have any patents in this space to share. The first efforts by Nokia, Motorola, etc. were to try to get Apple to cross-license other patents that could be used against them for smartphones. This became a problem when the established companies and Apple couldn't agree on how to value "slide to unlock" or "photo bouncing on edge of screen" compared to, say antenna design. So, instead of cross-licensing, these companies offered Apple rates far above what their other competitors were getting because the real value in FRAND was not the money, but the assurance that their competitors won't try to force them from the markets through lawsuits, and this is something that Apple wouldn't give them. Without that consideration from Apple, they viewed these patents as far more valuable on a purely dollar basis.
72. Re:That's rich by dolmen.fr · 2012-02-22 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  That's just the patent game. That's not fair to say the system is good when it is good for you and say it is bad when it is bad for you.
  If you don't want to lose, don't play.
  WebM is free, H.264 is not.
73. Re:That's rich by dolmen.fr · 2012-02-22 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  The word "standard" may be ambiguous.
  But I agree with Icebike that it is common to associate it by default with the "de facto standard" definition on Wikipedia.
  Disclaimer: english is not my native language.
74. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 00:01 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be operating under the notion that all standards are industry "standards". There's also international standards that are set by organizations like ISO and ETSI. Photoshop is an industry "standard", C++ is an international standard.
  Non-Practicing Entities are one thing, but if Google-Motorola decides to abuse their FRAND-patents they'll get slapped down faster than Microsoft.
75. Re:That's rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  You are confusing software patents, hardware patents, FRAND-patents and non-FRAND-patents. Please stop.
76. Re:That's rich by Nyder · 2012-02-23 04:42 · Score: 1
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit
  Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.
  That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  Does Motorola own the patents they are selling licenses to? And they want to charge whatever they want? I thought that was the capitalist crap that America is so great for? Do we have laws saying that you can't charge what you want?
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
77. Re:That's rich by Nyder · 2012-02-23 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  If moto owns the patent they can charge whatever they like for it (so long as they charge everyone the same). They don't have to justify the price to anyone.
  You're not aware of what the 'R' in FRAND stands for?
  Well, i did a quick google and all i could find so far is FRAND means Fan & Friend and crap like best friend.
  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frand
  and honestly, have you tried google it's meaning?
  https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=FRAND
  I have and I still do Not know what the R stand for.
  Do you? Care to share?
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
78. Re:That's rich by grepya · 2012-02-23 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit
  Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.
  That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.
  This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part
  Astroturf much ? You might at least put in slightly more effort than simply copy and pasting from the microsoft written post... I mean, what are they paying you for after all ?
79. Re:That's rich by exomondo · 2012-02-23 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  and honestly, have you tried google it's meaning? https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=FRAND
  I have and I still do Not know what the R stand for.
  Do you? Care to share?
  The first result is the wikipedia entry that clearly states the 'R' stands for 'Reasonable'.
80. Re:That's rich by makomk · 2012-02-23 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  They're for non-FRAND patents for technology required as a result of Microsoft's desktop monopoly, or at least the one that stands up to scrutiny best is.
81. Re:That's rich by makomk · 2012-02-24 00:01 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft did not promise patent immunity over Fat32, which became a defacto standard.
  It became a de-facto standard as a result of Microsoft's monopoly in the desktop computing market, which they have a history of abusing.
The obvious solution... by EmagGeek · 2012-02-22 06:07 · Score: 1

... don't sell the rights to anyone, at any price.
1. Re:The obvious solution... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The concept of an industry standard FRAND patent is that they are _REQUIRED_ to license the patent to _ANYONE_ at a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory rate. They agreed to that when their patent was accepted as part of an industry standard. If they didn't want to be bound by this restriction (and thus have control over who they licensed the patent to and who they didn't and at what rates they charged), they shouldn't have submitted the patents for inclusion in an industry standard technology.
  You can't have it both ways - attempting to have it both ways leads to anti-competitive lawsuits...
Pot, meet Kettle. by Severus+Snape · 2012-02-22 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I started to read the blog Microsoft wrote, I got as far as reading the title "Google: Please Don’t Kill Video on the Web" and couldn't read any more. Do Microsoft really think all of our memories are that short?
1. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:30 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  I started to read the blog Microsoft wrote, I got as far as reading the title "Google: Please Don’t Kill Video on the Web" and couldn't read any more. Do Microsoft really think all of our memories are that short?
  You really should RTFA. Google is the hypocrite here.
  Basically, Google was all, "Patents are evil! h.264 is patented and evil! Use WebM instead, we're giving it away free, out of the goodness of our patent-hating, royalty-eschewing hearts!" Remember that?
  Now Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264. Meaning, instead of charging a set rate, it charges a percentage of the sale price of the device. So apparently, to Motogoogle, the exact same h.264 decoder function is worth 3x as much in a $300 phone than in a $100 phone.
  Apple is has filed complaints against Motogoogle over the exact same thing, but of course Apple is evil, like Microsoft, and unlike Google, which Does No Evil.
2. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  You really should RTFA. Google is the hypocrite here.
  Yeah, I'm sure a blog by an MS suit towing the party line is going to just give us the impartial facts. This blog post is worthless without more information and any conclusions drawn from it are equally worthless.
  
  Basically, Google was all, "Patents are evil! h.264 is patented and evil! Use WebM instead, we're giving it away free, out of the goodness of our patent-hating, royalty-eschewing hearts!" Remember that?
  Yeah, it was all fun and games when Google was on the defensive. You thought you could just walk all over us with impunity. Ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun is it?
  
  ow Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264.
  Drop the insane patent royalties against Android and we'll take that into consideration in the negotiations. Fucking hypocrites.
  
  Apple is has filed complaints against Motogoogle over the exact same thing, but of course Apple is evil, like Microsoft, and unlike Google, which Does No Evil.
  Apple and MS have been scratching each other's backs for a long time. Old guard mentality. Google will hand them their asses in the end.
3. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-22 06:54 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Now Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264.>
  
  EXCUSE ME, BUT...
  Google doesn't, or barely, owns Motorola yet. This action was set into motion long before Google has ever taken control. You might fairly be able to complain about Motorola, but not Google.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
4. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  You're showing your bias here. Google has not yet been cleared to acquire Motorola, is is legally prohibited from working with them on things like this until that deal closes.
5. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:33 · Score: 0
  
  As part of the acquisition process, Motorola had to get prior Google approval. Also, the declaration of intent published by google a few days ago said that they will continue Motorola present practices, gaining a warning from both the US gov and the EU commission.
  http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/european-commission-clears-google.html
6. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, I'm sure a blog by an MS suit towing the party line is going to just give us the impartial facts. This blog post is worthless without more information and any conclusions drawn from it are equally worthless.
  You can't provide facts that aren't impartial. Facts are facts. Whether they are convenient to your argument or not is another matter.
7. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  You are the dumbest motherfucker on Earth if you don't realize "facts" can be spun to support essentially any argument you want. Cherry picking and providing the full story are two different things.
  Example for the slow:
  Question: Do I buy this car?
  Cherry picked fact: This car is safe
  Full disclosure: This car gets 12 miles per gallon.
8. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by ConceptJunkie · 2012-02-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, Microsoft used to take a different view against patents too. They did not used to play the patent strongarming game back in day... at least until patents started to used against them.
  And trust me, I'm no MS apologist. I have a hard time describing the company without using the word "evil". They weren't patent bullies back in the 90s, but it was one of the few nasty, anti-competitive things they _weren't_ doing back then.
  The reality is that if you don't engage in the patent arms escalation race, you'll be destroyed. Unlike the game "Thermonuclear War", with this game, the best way to lose is not to play.
  
  --
  You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
9. Re:Pot, meet Kettle. by rdnetto · 2012-02-24 22:14 · Score: 1
  
  You really should RTFA. Google is the hypocrite here.
  Basically, Google was all, "Patents are evil! h.264 is patented and evil! Use WebM instead, we're giving it away free, out of the goodness of our patent-hating, royalty-eschewing hearts!" Remember that?
  Now Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264. Meaning, instead of charging a set rate, it charges a percentage of the sale price of the device. So apparently, to Motogoogle, the exact same h.264 decoder function is worth 3x as much in a $300 phone than in a $100 phone.
  Apple is has filed complaints against Motogoogle over the exact same thing, but of course Apple is evil, like Microsoft, and unlike Google, which Does No Evil.
  Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the exact same strategy that was proposed in a previous /. article as a means of allowing FOSS use of FRAND-patented technologies? Say what you will about patents, FRAND-terms could clean this mess up a bit, especially if they are compatible with FOSS usage.
  
  --
  Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:08 · Score: 0

You can't make this stuff up.
1. Re:Delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Delicious irony
  The irony is I don't think you know what that word means.
2. Re:Delicious irony by voidphoenix · 2012-02-22 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  Neither do you...
  
  --
  Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
3. Re:Delicious irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Slashdot always has posts claiming people used the word irony wrong, even when it is used correctly. With the GP using it correctly and the sibling claiming it was wrong, posting that statement in that context does make it irony. The ironic form of sarcasism.
MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC by JAlexoi · 2012-02-22 06:08 · Score: 3, Informative

And I suppose they think that MS is seen as a trustworthy by the EC. There is a big conflict between EC and Microsoft that was never resolved, even though the oversight is over.
1. Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC by Tastecicles · 2012-02-22 06:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  and as far as I'm aware, the rolling fine the EC imposed on Microsoft is still going.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
2. Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the browser ballot imposed on Microsoft.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
3. Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC by Tastecicles · 2012-02-22 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  Apologies, I should cite my sources:
  This should clarify if you read the whole thing: in a nutshell, Microsoft were dragged through pretty much every US court by pretty much every service provider and competing browser, for bundling IE with Windows 95 OSR2. The claim that Gates made when the EU took him to task for continuing this trend in NT was that IE cannot be unbundled - it is part of the platform. The phrasing he actually used, IIRC, was "cannot be unbundled from the OS". The argument was that Win95 Gold did OK without a bundled browser; as did 3.1 and WFWG, which is completely logical in the face of it. Whether or not a single-vendor OS platform that comes bundled with a browser that already does everything and leaves the choice of whether or not to install Nutscrape or other browser to some political ideology, is a great idea, I leave to the reader to determine for himself, but as far as competing browsers were concerned, as they didn't have the option of bundling with the fastest selling desktop platform on the planet they felt a little put out - as I'm sure I would.
  The whole argument, as far as I'm concerned, is a fallacy: I for instance wouldn't expect to find Windows 7 on my Mac, or Android on my iPhone - because they are competing hardware and software technologies on the same market, but as with shoes and everybody's favourite analogy, one size does not fit all. IF you want a computer for something a Mac is good at, you don't go buy a PC. If you want a computer for power gaming, YOU DO NOT GO BUY A MAC!
  Microsoft bundling is not what killed Netscape, what killed Netscape was the bitching and moaning it made through its deluded fantasy that its severely outdated browser (that did not innovate because they were too busy biting the hand that fed it) deserved a space on a platform that they did not have any sort of hand in developing, and it died a well deserved death. Netscape usage fell because something better came along and Netscape stood stagnant. This might be an arguable point to some, but history recalls this as fact.
  Back to the originating issue in this subthread: when it came to the point of arguing against bundling IE with NT, the EC imposed daily mounting fines on Microsoft sometime in the late 90's (I forget the exact date) for what it considered to be "anti-competitive policy". To date, even though the oversights have ended, I don't think any portion of the fines have been paid nor have the fines stopped. Please correct me if I'm wrong (don't forget citations!). In the US cases, Microsoft offered, and had accepted, the issue of discount vouchers to the value of the fines for individuals, groups and companies for volume licensing of Windows, Office/BackOffice and Exchange, and SQL Server. At around this time the price of new computer equipment also plummeted overnight because as part of this deal, Microsoft agreed to subsidise the ICO of PC equipment to all. It was the scam to beat all scams: Microsoft won anyway - they guaranteed sales and also guaranteed that nobody could force it to part ways with itself.
  
  --
  Operation Guillotine is in effect.
4. Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC by JAlexoi · 2012-02-22 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Oversight is over though. That fine is pretty much one of the aspects of the conflict.
Pot assails Kettle by ackthpt · 2012-02-22 06:08 · Score: 1, Funny

Perhaps a little negotiating is in order. Hmm?
I've always said the consumer benefits when these companies cooperate on technology, perhaps saner minds will triumph and all these idiotic lawsuits (and patents) will be pused to the wayside.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Did they ever commit to licensing on FRAND terms? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

It sounds as if these are patents that Motorola never undertook to license on FRAND terms. Does anyone know whether that's accurate? It's hard to see why just becase a bunch of other people want to create a standard and license their own patents on FRAND that that should mean that everyone else has to as well. (Of course the patents themselves, like most such patents, are probably crap but that's another matter.)
FTFS: Microsoft, do you want to be... by Tastecicles · 2012-02-22 06:14 · Score: 2

...Pot or Kettle today?

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Overplayed Their Hand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

(Posting AC because I'm at work)
Motorola overplayed their hand. They are abusing FRAND patents and they are going to be taken to task for it. It might take years to play out but it will end poorly for them. And, frankly, everyone on Slashdot should hope that is the outcome because the thought of any company with FRAND patents being able to abuse them as Motorola has been doing is a terrifying thought - it would stifle entire industries. It is anti-competitive in the very worst sort of ways. Anyone who thinks that Motorola should get away with this just because of who they are or who their opponents are isn't thinking this process through...
1. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by inode_buddha · 2012-02-22 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  Pot, meet kettle.... Holy shit, who do these guys think they are anyway??? I mean, WTF, the sheer brass of it all? And people wonder whjy I walked away from MS back when Win98 came out.
  
  --
  C|N>K
2. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by inode_buddha · 2012-02-22 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Moto didn't overplay a damn thing. You guys are the ones overplaying, right now. And you know it.
  Show me what Moto did that is any different from what MS is doing to Android. If MS wants FRAND then maybe they should offer FRAND.
  Untiol then you guys really should STFU before you make yourselves look any worse.
  
  --
  C|N>K
3. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-22 11:45 · Score: 2
  
  Show me what Moto did that is any different from what MS is doing to Android.
  
  Motorola submitted their patents to the 3G patent pool, and declared that those patents will be available henceforth under FRAND terms - which, in turn, made it possible to use those patents in 3G spec. It's that FRAND pledge that's the issue here. There was no such pledge with respect to FAT, for example - it was always proprietary, and it was never claimed to be otherwise.
4. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 14:13 · Score: 0
  
  "Motorola submitted their patents to the 3G patent pool, and declared that those patents will be available henceforth under FRAND terms"
  Do you have any proof of this?
  Exactly which patents are Motorola asking licensing for? Do you have any proof that these patents were in a pool?
5. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-22 14:58 · Score: 1
  
  The patent in question is EP 1010336 (B1) (aka US patent 6,359,898 - it is more often referenced via its EP number because the court cases have happened mostly in Europe so far).
  And here is Motorola's ETSI IPR declaration of this patent as "essential" for GPRS - the link at the bottom is to the PDF of the declaration form. It lists the patent in question among several others, and has the following verbiage at the beginning:
  
  It is my belief that the IPRs listed in Annex 2 are, or are likely to become, Essential IPRs in relation to that Standard [GRPS].
  The signatory and/or its affiliates hereby declare that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential.
  Finally, here is the ETSI IPR policy:
  
  6.1 When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the Page 35 ETSI Rules of Procedure, 30 November 2011 owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions under such IPR to at least the following extent:
  - MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;
  - sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;
  - repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and
  - use METHODS.
  The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate.
  In the event a MEMBER assigns or transfers ownership of an ESSENTIAL IPR that it disclosed to ETSI, the MEMBER shall exercise reasonable efforts to notify the assignee or transferee of any undertaking it has made to ETSI pursuant to Clause 6 with regard to that ESSENTIAL IPR.
6. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by dolmen.fr · 2012-02-23 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  How is this relevant to H.264? That's what the article is about, isn't it?
7. Re:Overplayed Their Hand by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-23 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  I was answering the question above - "show me what Moto did that is any different from what MS is doing to Android." It was not limited to the discussion of one specific H.264 patent in TFA, since Moto is also asking for a similar license fee for all its patents across the board.
I get these flashes sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:17 · Score: 1

...and I'm picking up the prediction that Googel will be more than happy to put their patents away, if only MS does the same...
I guess the folks at Redmond can dish it out, but they can't take it...
Great timing by viperidaenz · 2012-02-22 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just as Google takes control.... Haven't Motorola been selling these licenses for like 10 years? Why is it only anti competitive now? Did they increase the prices more than inflation? My guess is the price is the same as it was years ago so they're effectively cheaper now and Microsoft, Apple and Google just hate each other.
1. Re:Great timing by viperidaenz · 2012-02-22 06:30 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  So After reading TFA, This is about H.264. Wasn't Microsoft a backer of H.264 a few year ago? When Google was promoting their free WebM codec back in the whole HTML5 Video thing? Something along the lines of "If you use a non-free codec in HTML you will kill video on the web". All this before Google tried to buy Motorola.
2. Re:Great timing by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Something along the lines of "If you use a non-free codec in HTML we will kill video on the web".
  FTFY
  
  --
  This space for rent.
Funny! by Fri13 · 2012-02-22 06:23 · Score: 0

Now I think I have seen the funniest thing of decade (Damn! It is 2012 and decade is just at begin and last decade ended....).
1) Microsoft shows how they have still skills to start a good old FUD campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EbCkotKPU
2) Microsoft files antitrust complain for competitor to enter market where it does not have control
Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-22 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh boo hoo Microsoft. No sympathy here. Your extortion of Linux users, Android users, USB drive users, and pretty much everyone else in the computer industry for some of the most questionable patents earns you no sympathy here. And that's not to mention your threats where you won't even list the patents allegedly infringed that you're threatening over. And even that's not to mention how questionable some of these patents are. And that even further not to mention that patent trolls you've enabled when you haven't wanted to get your own hands dirty. And still not to mention how your licensing terms give you control over future hardware design decisions for devices that you don't even manufacture yourself (thank you Barnes & Noble Nook) And now you cry foul? You are pathetic!

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1. Re:Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 06:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So it's ok for Motorola to anti-competitively abuse an industry because Microsoft acted poorly in the past and you don't like them? I do believe that's about as succinct a summary of the short-sighted opinions that are flowing in this thread...
2. Re:Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-22 07:07 · Score: 2
  
  So it's ok for Motorola to anti-competitively abuse an industry because Microsoft acted poorly in the past and you don't like them? I do believe that's about as succinct a summary of the short-sighted opinions that are flowing in this thread...
  I believe that you are succinctly correct, although I needed details to make my case, hence an initial lack of succinctness.
  But I also believe that you are wrong about deeming any of this short-sighted. The best corrective action for bad behavior on the part of any one player is to receive it back in return in spades. And let them become an object lesson for everyone else who wants to play this game as well.
  Yes, I think that succinctly sums it all up.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Are we not objective anymore? by js3 · 2012-02-22 06:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've been reading the comments, and there doesn't seem to be any talk about the argument at all. Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?

--
did you forget to take your meds?
1. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-22 07:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I've been reading the comments, and there doesn't seem to be any talk about the argument at all. Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?
  I think that the valid discussion is: Live by patent extortion, die by patent extortion.
  Also, FRAND said "Fair and Reasonable". Who defines "fair" and "reasonable"? The seller, or the buyer?
  Once upon a time in the automobile industry all of the existing patent holders got together to pool their patents and prevent any new competitors from being able to enter the industry. The government finally put a stop to that. I'd say that, for the good of everyone else, the government needs to do the same here.
  (Note: I don't support government intervention often, but the overall good of everybody is tied into our technological devices today in the same way that it once was in a fair market for automobiles.)
  Enough discussion?
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
2. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by Sez+Zero · 2012-02-22 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?
  I was deservedly blinded by the taste of my own rich medicine.
  In other words, you have pretty high standards for a Microsoft v. Google article.
3. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by animaal · 2012-02-22 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Note: I don't support government intervention often, but the overall good of everybody is tied into our technological devices today in the same way that it once was in a fair market for automobiles.
  I would have thought that the concept of patents and copyright are instances of government intervention. The government creates the legislation that grants temporary(!) monopolies to holders of these patents.
  Lack of government intervention would mean that no such monopolies could be enforced.
4. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2012-02-22 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  I would have thought that the concept of patents and copyright are instances of government intervention. The government creates the legislation that grants temporary(!) monopolies to holders of these patents.
  Lack of government intervention would mean that no such monopolies could be enforced.
  I find that more of government encouragement of rewarding the effort to go out and improve things that benefit us all -- usually.
  
  --
  "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
5. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by mcgrew · 2012-02-22 09:29 · Score: 0
  
  This is a case of a bully getting his ass handed to him and crying to the teacher. It has nothing to do with apple vs google vs microsoft vs linux fans. It has to do with a company acting with extreme hypocricy.
  You're an MS fanboi, aren't you?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
6. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by TemporalBeing · 2012-02-22 10:59 · Score: 2
  
  Also, FRAND said "Fair and Reasonable". Who defines "fair" and "reasonable"? The seller, or the buyer?
  I believe it is a case-by-case basis, but even so, typically the seller (e.g. the one who holds the patents).
  
  And, I believe someone (Groklaw?) pointed out that there is no definition what is "fair" or "reasonable" for FRAND by anyone.
  Thus, if the seller ultimately determines that the only "fair" and "reasonable" price is $1Billion USD, then even if no one wanted to pay that, that's what the price would be, and it'd be hard to say it's not "fair" or "unreasonable" since they seller would just specify why they believe it indeed is, and well, they hold the patents so you're out of luck.
  
  --
  Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
7. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by evilviper · 2012-02-25 22:32 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't a court. We don't NEED to discuss the merits of the case. If discussing how ironic it is proves to be more apropos, then that's quite alright. This is just another patent lawsuit after all, between rich companies who CAN pay the fees, so the outcome has no significant sway upon the world, UNLESS it does turn into the giant corporations turning on the patent monster they created, fed, and used (when it suited their purposes).
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
8. Re:Are we not objective anymore? by CheerfulMacFanboy · 2012-02-29 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  I've been reading the comments, and there doesn't seem to be any talk about the argument at all. Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?
  I think that the valid discussion is: Live by patent extortion, die by patent extortion.
  Also, FRAND said "Fair and Reasonable". Who defines "fair" and "reasonable"? The seller, or the buyer?
  Telling that you leave out the Non-Discriminatory part. Very telling. Because you'd have to prove that they ask the same from everybody.
  
  --
  Fandroids hate facts.
Nature of the patent by aepervius · 2012-02-22 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am guessing MS only ask for 2 cent, because out of those 2000+ patents most are trivial. Now the question is are those 50 patent on motorola mobility trivial ?

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I don't know about you... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 07:13 · Score: 0

...but I hope Shitorola get's pwn3d badly. I can't stand Microsoft but I hate Shitorola even more.
--
Jas
MS is not seen as trustworthy by anyone by SgtChaireBourne · 2012-02-22 07:37 · Score: 1

That "ballot" was self-imposed and no punishment. It still left their browser installed by default, and that was the heart of the matter: illegal bundling and undermining web standards. And even though the ballot let them get away with the illegal bundling, it still wasn't done right.

--
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
1. Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by anyone by recoiledsnake · 2012-02-22 10:20 · Score: 2
  
  Who cares, the post-PC world is almost here and Apple won't even allow you to install a real browser on their post-PC devices. At least MS always allowed that.
  And no one seems to care.
  
  --
  This space for rent.
2. Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by anyone by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-02-22 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  It did not leave IE installed by default, that's the whole point of the ballot. Unless and until you actually pick IE on that screen, you won't be able to launch IE on that OS install.
  As for the randomizer bug, it was just a bug - a silly one, admittedly, since this is random shuffling 101, but there's nothing sinister behind it. Of course, it was fixed shortly after it had been reported.
Pot files EU Antitrust Complaint by ThatsNotPudding · 2012-02-22 08:10 · Score: 1

against Kettles.
Bullies by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:11 · Score: 0

Bullies complaining about a new bully in the neighborhood. Ya know what they say, live by the sword...
MS fanbois by inode_buddha · 2012-02-22 08:14 · Score: 0

MS fanbois are definitely out in force today. FUD city. If I had to choose between MS technology and no technology at all, then I freely choose to have no technology at all. Suck it fanbois.

--
C|N>K
1. Re:MS fanbois by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  MS fanbois are definitely out in force today. FUD city. If I had to choose between MS technology and no technology at all, then I freely choose to have no technology at all. Suck it fanbois.
  And you'd still be higher on the tech ladder.
Not the whole story by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 09:34 · Score: 0

I suspect that Microsoft isn't telling the whole story. If what they claim is true, that Motorola wants to charge 2.25% of the price of a computer, just for a some patents directly related to the H.264 standard, then they are breaking the FRAND terms. I think when Motorola responds, we'll find out Microsoft is leaving out some very important details.
Laptops? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 09:52 · Score: 0

Microsoft doesn't sell laptops, so the quote about a $1000 or $2000 laptop is specifically mentioned to disort the potential license fees. If Motorola is charging 2.25% for their H.264 patents, that would be 2.25% of the codec's value, not the value of the laptop. The value of the codec would be a portion of the value of Windows. Not $22.50 or $45 like they are deceptively claiming.
FM by inode_buddha · 2012-02-22 10:23 · Score: 1

FM must be all kinds of butt-hurt, seeing as how all my posts have been down-modded. Gonna have to go back in history and find out what I posted that smacked him so hard. Truth hurts, eh?

--
C|N>K
Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 10:31 · Score: 0

TLDR. Can I just get a car analogy?
From Google's own lips. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-22 14:36 · Score: 0

EXCUSE ME, BUT...
Google doesn't, or barely, owns Motorola yet. This action was set into motion long before Google has ever taken control. You might fairly be able to complain about Motorola, but not Google.
Google openly admits that it's buying Motorola for its patent portfolio.
In any event, one call from Mountain View would put this policy on ice until the merger is either completed or rejected. Google won't make that call, because this is Google's fight.
H.264 vs WebM, again by dolmen.fr · 2012-02-22 20:53 · Score: 1

Looks like Microsoft is at least discovering that H.264 is patent encumbered, and that this can hurt business. Hey, just use WebM!
You need to read up on what FRAND is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-23 05:03 · Score: 0

Because it DOESN'T mean that you are required to license the patent to anyone at a fair, reasonable and non discriminatory rate.
E.g. the licensing may be to require that you only implement using GPL3 code.
It could be only available to nonprofit organisations.
YOU do not have the right to ask Motorola for a license to their patents.
And as others have pointed out, since MS have asked for $2-5 per patent from B&N, Motorola asking 50-90c per patent is hardly expensive.