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."

Comments

That's rich

[damicatz]

This is coming from a company that makes a business out of extorting Android phone makers for money.

Re:That's rich

[gstoddart]

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

Re:That's rich

[Dupple]

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

Re:That's rich

[damicatz]

Microsoft charges Android phone makers $5-$15 PER PHONE for only a handful of patents.

Re:That's rich

[recoiledsnake]

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.

Re:That's rich

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

Re:That's rich

[jdgeorge]

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.

Re:That's rich

[kelemvor4]

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!

Re:That's rich

[recoiledsnake]

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).

Re:That's rich

[recoiledsnake]

>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?

Re:That's rich

[UnknowingFool]

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.

Re:That's rich

[maccodemonkey]

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.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[Severus Snape]

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?

Re:Pot, meet Kettle.

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC

[JAlexoi]

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.

Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC

[Tastecicles]

and as far as I'm aware, the rolling fine the EC imposed on Microsoft is still going.

Did they ever commit to licensing on FRAND terms?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.)

Overplayed Their Hand

[Anonymous Coward]

(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...

Re:The obvious solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Great timing

[viperidaenz]

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.

Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft

[Nom du Keyboard]

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!

Are we not objective anymore?

[js3]

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?

Re:Are we not objective anymore?

[Nom du Keyboard]

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?

Nature of the patent

[aepervius]

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 ?