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

[damicatz]

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

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).

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.

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: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?