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."

45 of 148 comments (clear)

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 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
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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."
11. 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.
12. 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!
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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?
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 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."
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.
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 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.
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.
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...
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 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)
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
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.