Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Motorola Mobility
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."
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...
Microsoft charges Android phone makers $5-$15 PER PHONE for only a handful of patents.
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."
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."
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.