Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue
An anonymous reader writes "On the opening day of a patent trial between Microsoft and Google-owned Motorola Mobility, Motorola filed a brief (PDF) arguing that the WiFi tech central to the case is also critical to Microsoft's new Surface tablet. Motorola says royalties totaling 2.25% of all Surface revenues is a good starting point. They wrote, 'Microsoft's new Surface tablet will use only 802.11, instead of cellular or wired connections, to connect to the internet. Without 802.11 capability, the Surface tablet would be unable to compete in the market, because consumers can readily select tablet devices other than the Surface that have 802.11 capability.' Microsoft, of course, says this figure is outrageous, given 'Motorola's promise to standards bodies to offer access to the "standard essential" patents on fair and reasonable terms.'"
unless someone shows good sales numbers for the surface
Microsoft, of course, says this figure is outrageous, given 'Motorola's promise to standards bodies to offer access to the "standard essential" patents on fair and reasonable terms.'"
They have - they offered access to the patents for 2.25% - all they have to prove to the court is that this is their standard opening offer to show that it is non-discriminatory and fair.
If Microsoft want to play, they should offer back some of their FRAND patents to get the rate lowered. That's how the system is meant to work. Oh, but wait, Microsoft is fairly new to this type of hardware so probably hasn't got a lot to offer in this category.
I agree, I'm usually on Google's side, but this time I'm very disappointed that they're sinking to MS and Apples level of stifling "innovative" products, if you could call the surface that.
Although I'm sure they're doing it as a "when in Rome" situation because they've been burned so many times by Apple and MS suing them over patients.
And Microsoft NEVER EVER did that... Right? Microsoft needs to go away because of all the horrible things they have done.
They should just give Motorola the $60 and have done with it.
Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
But Android is open and Google is my friend! Sure they may thrive on violating everyones privacy but they give us summer of code!
Apple are evil jerks. They sue everyone. Their walled garden is ruining the world!
Maybe now that they have their own warchest, Google's gambit is to flood the system with as many of these kinds of patent lawsuits as possible, hoping to spark some change in Congress?
It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.
Are we really handing patents out for this?
What if the tablet has a video connector, or a USB port. Who patented that?
Can I be the guy who patented having a power connection on electronic devices? I'll sit back and let everyone else do the work for a change.
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
which is totally what she said
It is near enough the standard default request in case there are no patent exchange.
Before you get your panties in a twist; consider this: Apple and Microsoft are extorting about $20 to $30 for rounded corners and filename conventions.
But both companies have the same intention: To crush Android; because it is FOSS and neither can compete fairly with FOSS.
Motorola brings much more valuable technology to the table, and common sense would indicate it is more valuable than rounded corners.
In this specific case, I feel the ends justify the means.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Well, Microsoft were claimed to be receiving $15 per Android device. Ar $600 for a device, 2.5% would be $15.
So what's the problem? Microsoft made claims that Android infringes just 6 dodgy patents. 802.11 is a core patent.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf
Patents such as : "Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area."
Or "“Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents.”,
I don't see the problem with this, they dish it out but they don't take it? Their sales of Surface devices will be far less than Android devices, so they'll pay a lot less.
Not true. Microsoft sued Motorola Mobility (well known patent troll) because of FRAND patents.
"I bought the iPad when it first came out but found the user interface unintuitive and am appalled by the greedy accessory sellers and Jobs' "walled garden". I sold my first and second generation iPads on eBay and a Kindle Fire and netbook too so I might have the money to buy a Surface with the innovative TouchPad cover."
Is that what you meant to say? It rings as true.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
how is some essential shit like wifi so burdened with patents? god damn.
And how much did want patent troll called Motorola Mobility (anyone buys that Chinese crap?) for their FRAND patents?
Not true. Microsoft sued Motorola Mobility (well known patent troll) because of FRAND patents.
You are the one making untrue statements. Motorola Mobility has competing products in the market, hence it is not a troll by any stretch. They are offering their WiFi patents in a FRAND compliant manner at 2.25% to ALL licensees.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
No.. this is bullshit no matter who does it, and I like google tech.
If this isn't a patent on wi-fi itself then putting wi-fi on a computer-based device is obvious even to a lay person, and it's a bullshit patent. I hope they get their ass handed to them.
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
they own the company, mostly for the purposes of having these patents. Not really a proxy war anymore.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
They also deserve anything they get with the ongoing extortion of Android/Linux 'patents' that they insist on NDAs to even discus. How that's considered remotely legal is beyond me, and I'm very disappointed with anyone paying them for that kind of extortion.
Um MS started this. Read up at Groklaw. Basically Moto sent a proposal around 2010 I think, I forget exactly. They wanted 2.25% (as a starting point for negotiations, esp since MS doesn't have any FRAND patents, normally companies license at a much lower rate but that lower rate is due to cross licensing of standard patents or other patents essential to the device from both sides).
MS didn't enter negotiations, they went to ITC and complained, and then alleged that Moto is not metting it's FRAND obligations. Then Moto sued in Germany. Germany ruled in their favor initially and imposed a ban. MS went to a seattle judge, who basically says he can overrule the Germany court, lifted the Ban, and says He'll set a fair and resonable price. I believe he ruled this way because his case started before the Germany case. I still think he's on Crack that he can overrule a foreign country judge, but w/e.
Now I wish this judge wasn't as biased and would be like the judge in Wisconsin. Apple did the same thing against Moto against these Frand patents. The judge in Wisconsin saw that Apple was just using the lawsuit for leverage or if didn't agree with the price the judge set, use that price as a negotiating price after the lawsuit. She dismissed with prejudice. MS is doing the same thing. Yet Seattle judge, back yard to MS, blah blah blah.
But Moto didn't start this war. They wanted to negotiate first, MS didn't want to pay/negotiated.
Microsoft has devolved into a corporate raider (Nokia) and patent troll. (HTC, et al). A little of their own medicine is good for them.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
I think that's only partially correct -- I'd bet the real motivation (relatively to the devices in question) is the fact that most of the large Android manufacturers have cross-licensed patents with Microsoft, but a few haven't, and I'd bet Google is getting a lot of pressure from them. Telecommunication patents are a VERY deep thicket, and its a very expensive market to be in if you don't have a competitive portfolio so you can even-steven cross-license with everyone else. Apple and Google both do not have portfolios that deep, and have to fight with their smaller portfolios, rather than cross licensing. There's enough history (and existing licensing) between Apple and Microsoft that they just worked it out. Apple is then very selective about their direct attacks against Google-related properties (Samsung, etc) Google, on the other hand, bought Motorola for its IP portfolio and appears to think going after Microsoft will be better than going after Apple in the middle of the Samsung mess. (Likely rightfully so, best not to get sucked into that quagmire by association...)
IMO, its a risky move by Google. Microsoft's patent portfolio is VERY deep in a lot of areas critical to Google, and this could backfire badly on them.
Of course, anyone who has negotiated anything always starts way higher than you actually will settle. I bet they won't, though -- deep down this is a proxy battle over the things that really matter to Google. They critically need people using Android, Chromebooks and the ilk to keep eyeballs looking at their ads. They haven't knocked Apple down a notch in tablets, so I think they're trying to pre-emptively do so before the tide of web-to-app usage shifts far enough that their revenues completely dry up. And Microsoft is hitting them online with Bing and in devices now.
You mean that Microsoft company that taxes each android device with their FAT patent?
In this specific case, I feel the ends justify the means.
Well enjoy the fallout that comes from this. If Motorola wins by trolling with FRAND patents you can be sure other parties will turn around and do the same back at them and Android.
So, is your solution to give up and die or what?
I want microsoft to buy me a pony.
That's not going to happen either.
If anyone is on Google's side in this, you're a bloody hypocrite.
If Google is spending money to keep the patent system going, that makes me mad. But if Google is using the patents it holds to attack people who are attacking it with patents they hold, that's called fighting back, and they would have to be fucking stupid not to do it. In addition, they're only attacking people I hate. There are lots of other people "infringing" on the painfully obvious patents they hold, but does anyone here really believe Google is going to go full patent-troll and attack them too if they succeed with their present lawsuits? I sure don't. But I do believe that Apple or Microsoft will.
This is different, and it's different until they behave otherwise. Motorola hasn't exactly been a saint in the past, so I'm willing to reserve judgment until this whole flap is over to see what they do next, but there is nothing inconsistent about Google's actions, nor is there anything inconsistent about rooting for them while they counterattack, and your bald assertions that there is does not make it so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
is because you haven't understood it right.
I dunno, that sounds more like something Apple would say...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
That's priceless... and clueless!
Who started the whole war, really?! Wasn't Google that's for sure.
And about proxy wars, you must be really really young for you not to remember the whole MS/SCO arrangement trying to destroy linux. Guess what, MS is the one with a long history of doing it.
Microsoft supposedly gets x% cut of all android phones.
Turnabout is fair play.
The patent wars are a horrendus, hideous thing. My only hope is that they bring all the big tech companies so much pain that they eventually clamor to have the ridiculousness that is software patents eliminated.
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
Why do you think it was a bad question? Its clear based on everything Google has been doing that it is, in fact, utilizing Motorola IP as a proxy for corporate Google attacking Microsoft. That's not related to a whiny little comment or improving any public image. Its a valid discussion point. You can be assured that Google (just like any company taking an action like this) has a great number of lawyers who have been formulating the strategy.
The lawsuit, as it is, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They'll go at 2.25%, and it'll probably settle out at 1/4 of that, if they win at all. They'll spend a lot more money on lawyers than they'll ever get out of it. By any measure the multiple on costs of a lawsuit like this isn't high enough to warrant the risk of loss (or worse yet, a judgment that impacts other licensing agreements!)
I think the GP is quite correct -- why is Google using a wireless patent as a proxy? What is their motivation?
It seems to me its probably a few things:
- Sabre rattling, although this is probably dangerous given Microsoft's patent portfolio. (The patents around computing technologies are more significant to Google than anything related to mobile)
- A small enough actual cost to Microsoft that they'll pay it, and Google can use that as leverage in subsequent lawsuits.
- They could be close, but not close enough, in existing patent cross-licensing discussions that they're trying to force Microsoft's hand and sweeten an offer.
- An overzealous business unit manager decided to unilaterally take the action without considering the potential impact to the rest of Google.
- Motorola wants to exercise their IP portfolio prior to closing the deal with Google. I can't figure out if the deal has actually closed yet -- best I can tell, it hadn't as of a month or two ago. If it hadn't, maybe they want to take the action while its still "safe" to do so with regard to the rest of Google's business?
In either case, your dismissal of a valid question seems to be a lot more puzzling than the question itself being asked.
Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.
Android isn't a company. That isn't how patents work. Microsoft cross licensed patents with other handset manufacturers, just like every one of them did with all the others. Google can't defend anything, because they weren't the licensee or the target of any legal actions with regard to that IP.
Keep going, that phrase almost made sense. It has "words" at least.
Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue
So give them a couple hundred bucks and be done with it...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Something along those lines.
I've never owned an iPad, a Kindle or a netbook and I have no interest in the Surface. Sometimes I wouldn't mind owning an android tablet, but really have no use for it other than to use it as an e-reader, which my android phone does nicely anyway.
I think you've summed up the consumerism and how loosely the term innovative is thrown around these days. "But judge our product has rounder corners, it's innovative", "I know let's attach a keyboard as the cover instead of a kickstand.... Funny it looks like a netbook with a detachable keybard... that's supper crazy extra monkey balls innovative!!!! "
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Actually, since Google have acquired Motorola Mobility fully; it is Google vs Microsoft.
MS is the one not leaving Android alone. They are threatening Android OEMs into patent licenses for their ridiculously stupid patent portfolio. Many top OEMs like HTC recently, Barnes and Noble etc. have succumbed and are paying more money to Microsoft than to Google for using Android.
So Google decided to acquire Motorola Mobility and take Microsoft head-on to prevent further damage to the Android ecosystem.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
a) Motorola is already Google's, so calling it "proxy" is a bit strange, but leaving this aside
b) MS went around shaking down Android vendors over patent issues like FAT long names
c) Said shakedown did raise quite a few questions like "What's Google doing to protect their partners?"
Under which rock did you sleep?
Hey man, My assertions are as hairy as they come.
Bald assertions... pssh.
Then, by extension, Apple, Google, and a few hundred more companies should also go away because of their histories or their recent and current activities. Once you are for profit you become a dirt bag. Once you grow to a certain large size, you become even worse. That is just how it is.
Several, Samsung being one of them, would already like patents gone. They've spoken about this, but they can't really clamor because they NEED some form of patent system and the current one is so broken no one has a good way to fix it.
Give me a break, who started suing who? Microsoft AFAIK already sued Google, Motorola, Barnes&Noble and others over Android. Several others settled without going to court (HTC, Samsung, etc).
You see them as sinking to MS and Apple level, I see getting some leverage against trolls.
You sure didn't see Google filling suits or having much patents before Apple and MS started suing left and right over android, only then did they acquired Motorola Mobility (and they took their sweet time).
Apple and MS should lose bad with all this. Maybe then they'll start behaving.
so you are saying it is fair that MS gets paid a royalty for every android phone sold, but suddenly google is evil when MS is using their patents but not paying?
you do realize MS gets x% of every android sold?
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft? Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Google can't sue Microsoft for breaching a patent held by Motorola. Neither can Google's owners (their shareholders). Motorola has to do that. Do you really think Google should spend valuable time and effort to transfer all patents and patent licences from Motorola to Google first, just to have their name on the plaintiff?
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
If putting bad guys in their place is wrong, I don't want to be right!
If you check the PDF linked in the summary, you'll see that it's something like 11 patents covering the implementation of Wi-Fi. Though since they make it sound like in many cases there are no other sensible ways to implement the standard, it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
which is totally what she said
Of course it all hangs on the definiton of "fair and reasonable", which is not exactly something easy to do objectively. If I were to require such licences, I'd say zero would sound very reasonable :) If I would to provide such licences, I'd go for as a high price I could get out of you. They will fight this out and come to terms, one way or the other, and both will say the resulting sum is neither fair nor reasonable :) Well, life is unfair, live with it.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
And yes, I stand by my statement. You can't whine about patent wars in one thread and praise a patent war in another, hypocrisy reigns supreme. (Not you personally, just you in general)
All parties are guilty in all situations, when everyone realizes that and stops picking on any particular company as the 'bad guy' I'll be a happy camper.
How is this a proxy war at all? Microsoft, apple, oracle and SEO competitors have been suing companies working with google in conjunction - that's a proxy war. This, however, is a process that should *NEVER* be in court in the first place. The only reason it is, is because Microsoft sued Motorola , not the other way around.
The question is: why is Microsoft trying to avoid paying for FRAND patents and trying to use the court as a sledgehammer to do so in the exact same way as apple, when there is a process already defined?
the answer already exists by the way: they want to stop android/google from competing.
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft? Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Hmm maybe because Microsoft is doing the SAME THING except suing manufacturers of android handsets rather than Google its-self. Then after the lawsuits were done they are charging a license fee to companies selling android. I'm guessing this suit is really intended to either offset that cost or get MS to agree to a cross license agreement.
Here you go, since you seem to have a selective memory: https://www.informationweek.com/windows/microsoft-news/microsoft-gets-android-phone-makers-to-p/231901481
Are you really saying that Google with Moto doesn't have a deep portfolio folder in communications?
I think you have the 2 confused. MS has barely any in the communication area from what I understand. MS is getting Android with other patents (I think 1 is the Fat 32). MS has none in the communication field. Moto has many, Moto cross licenses with many others who do, so taht 2.25% is much less for those other companies.
Since MS has none in this area and I bet Google thinks the patents MS has are software/prior art and not standard essential, Google feels OK. Now MS did get a judge in their backyard who is rulling in their favor (look at same Lawsuit between Moto/Apple in Wisconsin what happened there, and this judge saying he can overide Germany rulings).
You also say about negotiating starting High, MS didn't even negotiate, they got the letter and immediatedly went to ITC/Judge. How is that negotiating in good faith. At least the Judge in Wisconsin saw Apple's ploy for what it was. Wish this judge wasn't so MS biased.
Can you please point out to me MS patents that are critical to Google?
That's a stupid justification.
Bull-shill-shit!
FRAND abuse? I wonder if you think the "F" in FRAND means "Free" because if you do you're quite wrong. It means Fair.
With that said, being an EU citizen, I really can't picture Google being arsed much over this. It's way less of a stretch for Google to get in trouble over the ad revenue and media debacle then with this (and that's not EU related, but related to some states - namely France - in the EU).
Oh, and the ITC.... yeah, short term memory? Even the courts in the US dismiss (with prejudice) those claims.
Okay, I'll respond to the questions then (though someone else has already done a better job than I will, it seems).
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft?
How is it "low" to go via the division that owns the patents? The majority of the tech world knows now that Motorola Mobility = Google. It's a whole lot more straightforward than the Microsoft/SCO shenanigans that were going on.
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
"Leave them alone"? Seriously? Google are bullying Microsoft are they? By asking them to license technology for which they have the patents? It's not like they're trolling either - they make products that utilise these patents, and many other businesses license the patents too. And again, what is the difference if Google sues directly, other than the hassle that it would take to transfer the patents over to Google. For one thing if they did that, it might make the staff at Motorola Mobility rather skittish and apt to move on because it seems like they are being sucked dry of their assets in preparation for shutting them down, or something along those lines.
which is totally what she said
There's something only Microsoft can patent on their Surface. It's the chair throwing application. Works like a charm. This patent can be used to attack both their competitors, if they (Microsoft) lose on the legal side.
So we're back to the MS Shills getting first post again, are we?
Doesn't matter anyway, 'cos 2.25% of fuck-all is still fuck-all. And that's what Google's going to get from Microsoft because nobody'll buy their massively overpriced piece of shit tablet.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
If someone walks up to you and punches you, that's assault. If you hit him back while he's attacking you, that's self-defense.
Apple and Microsoft have been using their patent portfolios aggressively. Google has been using its in self-defense and defense of its allies (Samsung). That's a substantial difference.
Well sucks and all, but I bet a lot of the protocols for Wifi and its implementation are patented. A lot of these standards should have been pooled at deep discount rates but weren't. A lot of them are derivative and should have been disallowed and weren't.
But I don't see the problem as Motorola (aka Google) are simply seeking the same fee Microsoft supposedly gets for a bunch of garbage patents from Android devices. I recall Microsoft attacking TomTom over Fat32 filenames just as it was raising more cash from the stock market, and TomTom being forced to settle to avoid litigation while it was raising the capital. So I find it difficult to have any sympathy for Microsoft. No that's too mild, I think Microsoft and everyone who works for them are scum who fully deserve all the ill will they receive.
Karma dude, and Microsoft has a lot of negative karma to balance out.
Oh and I mistyped 2.5% in to my calc, the fee would be $13.5 at 2.25% a little less for the $599 Surface, than Microsoft is supposedly getting for Android devices.
How Surface doing? 'Modest'?
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
Or perhaps, like many here, you believe in the right of self-defense. If you come out to attack me, you cannot complain when I hit you back. If you come at me with a sword, and I have a gun, you also can't complain when I use the gun.
Microsoft and Apple sent a very clear message that they intend to destroy everyone else in the IT industry. Everybody else has the right and, in fact the imperative to fight back. Bullies who are left alone just get stronger.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
No, in context is a perfectly valid justification. The patent system is broken and can be played (Google didn't had much interest for patents until Apple started suing everyone over Android).
Being a system that's imposed to them by law, they have to play the game or be eaten alive (or, more likely, their partners in Android start jumping ship, because that was one of the things people accused Google of doing - or not doing - that was to defend Samsung, HTC and everyone on the Android boat against said attacks). Getting some leverage and forcing at least those attacks to stall is only normal.
So, as long as the system continues to be in the state it is, it's not hypocritical to follow the rules of engagement but still advocate for change in that system. Hypocritical is to sue against innovation (but in the name of protecting innovation, go figure) while copying stuff from the competition (and I have no problem against a company of taking some ideas from the competition... if it's better and it's obvious, please do! Ideas shouldn't be patentable - abstract or not).
Indeed, it really IS 2.25% for everyone.
Payment in kind is also acceptable.
But it is 2.25% to everyone.
So it is Non Discriminatory.
I dunno... I have difficulty finding fault. Or at least, I'm not at all surprised that they're becoming aggressive.
If you were walking down the street, and every day the same couple of guys came up to you and mugged you, how many times would you allow that to happen before you're finally fed up and decide to fight back?
Google is not going around trying to shake down 3rd parties to line their pockets. They're not going around saying, "We're going to CRUSH them! Raaaaah!" Ballmer, however, is famously quoted for saying just that. So is Steve Jobs.
What I see is Google standing up to bullies, and I wish them luck.
Killing is wrong, but if people are trying to kill you then killing them to protect yourself is not considered wrong. It is the same thing. MS and Apple are trying to kill google. Google does not like patents or patent wars, but will use them to defend themselves.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I've been called a Google fanboy many times, but I don't support Google here.
Yes, Microsoft are charging a $5 tax per Android device (unethical).
Yes, Apple think they deserve $1bn+ for "bounce back" (unethical. laughable if it wasn't so disgusting)
So Google join the games too., and people support Google playing similar games because?..
There is one loser in all of this, and it isn't Microsoft, Google, or the lawyers (cui bono - dear lawyers, cui bono). No, it's YOU, because you pay an extra price for that product because someone discovered something and has Carte Blanche to generate an obscene amount of money for an equally obscene amount of time, which bears no relation to the cost of the R&D to "discover" such a discovery.
I would respect Google more if their actions were principally in the interest of society. Do no evil? My ass.
Oh, obligatory middle finger salute to Microsoft and Apple for being the leaders of the tech pack in frivolous IP claims. Also feel free to tell me how "bounce back" is worth $1bn+ and how this corruption and perversion benefits society.
Once you grow to a certain large size, you become even worse. That is just how it is.
There's been a concerted effort to make it appear that way, but it's not true. Companies like Microsoft, Apple, Oracle etc have been far more predatory than most.
Not every company is a bad corporate citizen, and we should recognise that with our purchasing choices. You do us all a disfavour by pretending they are.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Payback's a bitch isn't it?
M$ extorts money from android vendors, because of bullshit patents.
Now the big daddy comes back the M$ wanting a cut of their tables.
Do you understand what a proxy is? How does a patent act as a proxy for a company. How does a company act as a proxy for itself.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Nice try redefining abuse. Abuse is not something you dont like happening. Abuse of an FRAND patent is defined in the contract that the holder has with the body. That contract Motorola is following. If they were failing to uphold that contract and actually abusing then the standards body would be chiming in as well.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Because they were developed as part of a standard, the patents have to be licensed under terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory(FRAND) terms. Microsoft is claiming that the amount of money they are requiring is not meet the FRAND requirement. And at 2.5% of Surface revenues, Microsoft is probably right.
Microsoft milked their business partners for quite a big load of cash and is now at the point where they have a bigger income from Android phones than from their own ones. They are extorting money from Android without contributing anything to it, and now Google is standing up for his allies and hitting them back. I agree that this is not how patents are supposed to work, but Google didn't lobby for the current system. And frankly I don't see how a bogus licencing is more ethical than a bogus suit.
Since the Surface will very soon be going the way of the Zune, 2.25% of nothing is nothing. No news here, nothing to see. Move Along!
These are legit patents. These are not bullshit Apple patents, like the shape of an icon, or something equally trivial.
If MS is going to use Motorola patents, why shouldn't MS pay.
It's sad that what you say is true. It's even sadder that people just accept the status quo.
That said, you'll not find a lot of companies that have sunk as low as Microsoft. Yeah, there are companies that have done worse things, but you don't find them on every Main Street in America.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
it seems kind of crappy to me that they're allowed to patent those implementations..
The point here is quite specific; At the time that the standard was designed, Motorola already had a patent. They came along to the part of the standard design where this was relevant and Motorola declared the patent (they have to; as part of their involvement in the standardisation). The Motorola patent technology was then included into the standard in return for Motorola agreeing to RAND licensing of that patent. Otherwise the standard wouldn't have been possible as it stands.
This gives obligations on both sides when someone wants to implement the standard. If someone comes along and negotiates then Motorola has to offer a "Reasonable And Non Discriminatory" license to them. On the other hand, the other side has the obligation to negotiate. The obligation to license as "Reasonable" isn't clearly defined, but it's normally taken to mean "not much more than they would get if the patent wasn't in the standard" and "not enough to stop people from making products". It could still be up to 80% of the product sale price if the patent was the main feature of the product, however.
There are plenty of things wrong with this. It makes it very difficult do do open source implementations of such standards. It's very opaque and so on. However, it's much much better than the standard situation with other patents where there is no obligation to license at all and it's often impossible to know which patents cover a particular technology.
Make no mistake; Microsoft is trying to use this attack to weaken companies like Motorola which have been reasonable and supported open standards. They have no intention of openly licensing their own patents such as the ones on FAT that they are using to attack Android manufacturers.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
most people want to play with the device before they commit their hard-earned money on it
Presumably they can do that by visiting the nearest Microsoft retail store or by finding a real life friend or relative who has visited a Microsoft store.
bull, it's a fight for survival and Google did not start this firght. It was Apple and Microsoft who started it and caused Google to have to spend billions on purchasing up patents to arm themselves for the fight. There was no other way to fight off Apple or Microsoft.
Or they could pull the 'turn the other cheek' bull crap and say 'but we didn't stoop to their level' at the closing ceremony before closing their doors for good.
In the patent game, because it is a game of mutual assured destruction or die game, what was said was 100% a valid justification.
I think that GP was attempting to explain that Google has filed suit in self defense.
You don't walk around downtown shooting everyone who gets in your way - that's murder. But, if you're assaulted while downtown, by some deranged fool who is trying to kill you - then you have the right to shoot him, in self defense.
It's never "right" to shoot someone, but in some cases, it's not "wrong" either.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Other than recording shit that people were screaming at the top of their lungs while driving by...
What exactly has Google done?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
So that's like, what... 30 bucks or there abouts?
MS don't want google to know how many surface tablets they are(n't) shipping
I thought it would be good for the Windows RT platform if prospective developers of applications for Windows RT had an idea of how many potential customers had devices that can run applications for Windows RT. How else does Microsoft plan to draw developers away from iPad, Kindle, and Nexus 7/10?
Based on what evidence? Apple has been sued left and right based on the success of the iPhone. Apple paid through the nose to use the term "iPad" only to have a Chinese company sue them because the license Apple agreed to did not cover one area in China.
Seriously do some research.
They keep leaving the "t" out.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
They are offering their WiFi patents in a FRAND compliant manner at 2.25% to ALL licensees.
If more than 44 different patent holders demand their 2.25 percent of a particular product, then what is left for the device's manufacturer?
Android isn't a company.
From Wikipedia's article about Android:
So Android is a company. Both it and Motorola Mobility are subsidiaries of Google Inc.
Google can't defend anything, because they weren't [...] the target of any legal actions with regard to [Android] IP.
You mean other than an unsuccessful lawsuit from ORACLE (One Rich Anus Called Larry Ellison)?
They keep leaving the "t" out.
It's a silent "t" for the silent partner El Goog.
MS has been milking(and influencing them to release wp models) android manufacturers with every patent it can think of for years now. can't see it as a risky move due to that - MS is already using their patent war chest against them so what risk is there really?
wanna know why sd cards and usb mountability-as-a-disk(instead of needing something shitty like kies, mtp etc) aren't in fashion anymore? fat..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
Track everything everyone does online?
Circumvent the privacy settings in safari to track people online?
Refuse to integrate turn by turn navigation on the iDevices to try and keep android relevant?
I'm sure there is a ton more.
What makes it better? are you using the win7 version?
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
This is just another patent troll trying to get money. The whole patent system needs a reboot starting with any patent that pertains to basic principles, shapes, colors, buttons, and the likes. Better yet why not just throw all of the current patents out the window, and let all the patent trolls kill them selves in the scramble to grab as many as possible.
Umm... No.
First, the Wisconsin judge didn't overrule any court in Germany, nor does he have the authority to do so. He can however forbid google from starting another case in another jurisdiction to try and extort a company with a pending case in his jurisdiction.
Secondly, Germany did not make an any initial ruling. As part of cases, judges can put a TEMPORARY ban on products that are part of a patent suit to make sure that they don't infringe. Making one of these temporary bans is not a ruling, and the judge does not have to make any preliminary decision on whether anyone is guilty in order to enforce it.
Thirdly, google CAN bring that suit in Germany before the Wisconsin one is settled, and the courts there have every right to make their own independent verdict on their own case. I think you will find however, that the ramifications of google doing that would be detrimental to their goals. For example, the judge could order the ban of all google products in the US, fine them for ungodly amounts of money, break google up into teeny weeny pieces, or force the company closed or any of those.
Demanding more than FRAND costs?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Do you understand what a proxy is?
How does a patent act as a proxy for a company.
How does a company act as a proxy for itself.
There are proxy companies, proxy servers and proxy actions, etc. Do YOU understand what a proxy is? This is a proxy action. Motorola won't make any real money off the lawsuit, because the expenses will very likely be near the amount they can get out of it. Thus its a proxy lawsuit for some other motivation. The question is, what is the motivation? At $500-$750 an hour for their lawyers, they'll burn through millions or tens of millions on the lawsuit. That's sheer insanity given the likely size of the Surface market and the amount they'd realistically be able to get for it.
Any percentage of total revenue is not a negotiating tactic but a blatant misuse of the standards system. A FRAND patent on wi-fi enables a wi-fi chipset to work. They should get a percentage of the chipset's value. If MS puts a better screen on a device and raises its market value, why would Google's wi-fi patent suddenly add more value? It wouldn't.
The "Non-Discriminatory" implies that the licensing costs should be the same regardless of the device it's being put into, based on the ability of the wi-fi chipset to connect to a wi-fi network.
E pluribus unum
So Steve Jobs says that they will fight for the iphone leadership no matter what, that apple would go "nuclear", using patents if needed, sue google partners and the partners and google would stay still, paying the money to apple without doing anything? MS go after google partners for stupid patents, some claimed to hit the linux kernel (and never show up proof ), trying to get money from every android... and google would stay still without doing anything?
At least google dont like patents, but its a weapon and a good counter-attack weapon. Apple and MS sued everyone to limit and crash some money, its obvious that those partners and google would strike back. Its time now... apple is losing in several patent fights, MS cashed many dollars from google partners, time for google to cash some of that money "back", using exactly the same weapons they were so eager to use.
Patent fight is nuclear war, in the end, no one really wins. Money that could be spend in advancing the technology is spend in lawyers
Higuita
Moto-goog charging 2.25% for FRAND patents is NOT a counter attack. No matter what you claim.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Refuse to integrate turn by turn navigation on the iDevices to try and keep android relevant?
On all the rest I can agree once I see the evidence, but this is clearly bollocks no matter what. No one has a duty to develop anything for your device of choice.
Yes, when x 2.25
Which is the whole point of this brouhaha.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The problem is if you say you're going to keep turning the other cheek, but then one day you turn around and punch those guys out, no one is going to believe what you say any more.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120930131752509
Basically said they can't enforce the ban they won in Germany. If that's not the definition of overruling, I guess I'm confused. Sure Moto would have to put up bond to damage MS may suffer if they win.
How much exactly is FRAND?
And MS's way of wanting say in features in future updates to android put on phones/tablets that have licensed from MS? Or having veto power over features? For things that their Patents don't even cover.
Also: Microsoft is also demanding exorbitant licensing fees for the use of Android. Indeed, shortly after Microsoft sent Barnes & Noble a proposed licensing agreement on or about January 6, 2011, Microsoft confirmed to Barnes & Noble that it was demanding licensing fees [redacted] for each NookTM and [redacted] for each Nook ColorTM. It is Barnes & Noble's understanding that these licensing fees that Microsoft demands for the use of the Android are the same, or higher, than the licensing fees that Microsoft charges for its own Windows Phone 7 -- despite the fact that Microsoft only claims ownership of only trivial and non-essential design elements in Android-based devices, as opposed to an entire operating system.
Sure we don't know those numbers, but $15 was what people were saying. At 2.25% that's around $670 per device. Last I checked xbox is cheaper then that, by alot. And I would say MS patents are more trivial then Moto's patents.
And who says that Moto hasn't offered 2.25% to everyone when they first start negotiating. If that's the case, they aren't being discriminatory.
Again, starting point, negotiate. What the Frand requires. MS/Apple skipped that part and went right to lawsuits. Apple didn't have a friendly judge in their backyard and got "unlucky".
By that logic what Stalin did was fine because hitler was first. Let's not forget that actually Motorola started early on. I believe in fact actually they started it. Google just had nothing of value in this area until they bought Motorola. They're no better than the others and trying to justify their tactics is rather fanboyish.
You are absolutely right! And since the most predatory company in business history is Intel I'm sure you will never use any of their products ever again...
According to an engineer I know who worked for Compaq in their heyday. Compaq had developed a superior data bus in the 90's and Intel had requested access to it so they could optimize their chips to utilize it. They signed the NDA and several months later Intel introduced a motherboard with the bus integrated. Copmaq threatened to sue if they didn't pull the board or license the technology. Intel said go ahead and sue...Oh by the way we will no longer sell you CPU's. Compaq licensed the tech to Intel free of charge.
Microsoft did something similar to Citrix and STAC Electronics.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You mean to say, it's equally stupid. But who made any claim that patent law regarding stupidity as a form of meritorious criteria what-so-ever? The systems obliges its players to bow to an equal level of stupidity.
So, perhaps a justification based on who first bows to these new levels of stupidity has more merit than you would like admit.
I think that GP was attempting to explain that Google has filed suit in self defense.
The courts give Goggle a chance to defend themselves. It's the purpose of the court to decide if Google has infringed or not. If they are found innocent, great, if guilty shut up, pay up, and go on your way.
The sad part is Google is developing Android essential for Samsung, a far worse company ethically then Microsoft when Google should be allies with Apple.
Funny how this is considered flame bait. Sad that we cannot have disagreements any more.
Err, who said they had to *write* that?
They refused to allow Apple access that.
Big difference.
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
Actually, this is the funniest thing about all the righteous indignation against Google in this whole discussion. This wasn't actually a lawsuit by Motorola against Microsoft. This was a lawsuit by Microsoft against Motorola for Motorola licensing a patent they owned on the standard market rate and not the rate Microsoft wished to pay. In other words Microsoft sued Motorola; not the other way round
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
In this specific case, I feel the ends justify the means.
Well enjoy the fallout that comes from this. If Motorola wins by trolling with FRAND patents you can be sure other parties will turn around and do the same back at them and Android.
If the fallout entails a fixing of the patent system then we all will enjoy it, thanks.
No, by that logic what Soviet (and all other Allies) soldiers did was fine because Germany was first. Holocaust and Gulag are unrelated to war and was done by governments to their own people.
Good job goodwining the thread with a faulty logic just to show off your own fanboyism while calling others out on it.
Sorry, but this is patently false. Percentage values of product are a usual way of setting rates.
And yes, I stand by my statement. You can't whine about patent wars in one thread and praise a patent war in another, hypocrisy reigns supreme. (Not you personally, just you in general)
It's very simple. I can easily criticise Germany for invading Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Poland in 1939 and still completely support the UK and USA for invading France in 1944. This despite the fact that France didn't invade either the UK or the USA. In fact, I can completely say that the WWII was a bad idea whilst having no criticism at all for the fact that New Zealand fought during it.
All parties are guilty in all situations, when everyone realizes that and stops picking on any particular company as the 'bad guy' I'll be a happy camper.
So, the USA was fully guilty and responsible for Pearl Harbour? Probably you would come up with some explanation about how the USA was "asking for it" by not supplying Japan enough oil. Aha ha. I'm sure you would be really happy if everybody thought so. It would mean there would be no need for you to examine your own moral situation. However there are plenty of us out here, both companies and people, who are just muddling by, trying to more or less follow the law and our own sense of morality. The fact that "nobody is perfect" doesn't mean that these people and companies are "guilty". Just try to do your best and accept the mistakes you make and you have no reason to feel bad. You too could resign from your current employer and become a valuable member of society. Think about it. It would be so easy and you would feel better too.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Microsoft has negotiated agreements with Android vendors for licensing. According to you, Google has the right to sue for 2.25% of revenue because they don't like how much their business partners negotiated to pay Microsoft in licensing. 2.25% of revenue for wifi FRAND licenses is clearly orders of magnitude out of line. Google is digging itself a big hole here. THIS issue is one of the keys to the potential antitrust suit against Google and rather than see the obvious writing on the wall, they choose to double down on it. Not a wise judgement in my view.
I don't see how a bogus licencing is more ethical than a bogus suit.
One is a bad deal and the other is abuse of the legal system. Put another way, one will give you a bad reputation and the other will get the FTC knocking on your door.
Moto-goog charging 2.25% for FRAND patents is NOT a counter attack. No matter what you claim.
Why not? FRAND nowhere says "cheap". Given that it seems that these are essential WLAN patents, and they make up the only external communication from the surface tablet, a charge of 10% or a fixed charge of say $50 could be completely "reasonable". This is the problem with "reasonable". It has no clear definition and it definitely doesn't guarantee a price which should make the technology widely available.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Perhaps you don't understand what the word 'counter-attack' means.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
if you say you're going to keep turning the other cheek
[citation needed]
Baloney. Turning the other cheek only goes so far, and if your aggressors treat your position as an invitation to continue more frequent and more brutal attacks, people would think you're insane not to fight back. It's not like Google is turning around and suing all and sundry.
To maintain the analogy, MS and Apple hit Google. Google just took it, not wanting to escalate. MS and Apple *continue* to hit Google. Then they move up to brass knuckles. Then knives. Then guns. You can't possibly tell me that Google wouldn't be justified in saying, "Ok, Screw this" and started returning fire.
Microsoft has attacked by trying to demand royalties on every Android device. Now Google has got to a position where they can demand royalties on every Windows device. What's not a 'counter-attack' here.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Yeah, sure. A counterclaim would be analogous to self-defense, not suing just because someone has attacked you before.
To fix your analogy, if someone walks up to you and punches you, that's assault (well, battery, but whatever). If you then walk up to him and punch him the next time you see him that's also assault. It's not self-defense.
Win8. IE10 just has really good gpu acceleration, where as chrome is terrible. IE10's framerate and scrolling is very smooth on extremely graphically heavy pages where as chrome just seems like its chugging at 3fps.
For example:
http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/cnns-don-lemon-jonah-hill-was-a-tool-for-ignoring-me-in-hotel-lobby-1717280.story?ocid=answw11
Or huffington post, or even slashdot itself. IE10 is just smooth. Chrome is not performing well in comparison. I still like chrome because of the extensions and better adblock addons, but I have to say IE10 is pretty impressive, and I thought IE9 was ok but not good enough. Now I think IE10 is better, but needs extensions cause no one makes any for it obviously.
M$ has retail stores? Not around here.
And for some reason, feature films released in the fourth quarter of each year are far more likely to be shown in theaters in "select cities" than worldwide.
Basically said they can't enforce the ban they won in Germany. If that's not the definition of overruling, I guess I'm confused.
You are confused. They CAN, and it would remain legal in Germany, however, they were ordered not to. Overruling would be invalidating the decision made by the German courts (which was predicated on possibly invalid assumptions) and seen by the court as extortion, which is still illegal in the United States.
...34 bucks?
Anyone using Google Android is being licensed for like $15 or something per device for the VFAT long file names capability in Linux. Google is applying the same pressure to Microsoft, by which Microsoft is at a disadvantage if their product gains traction, and simply a loser if their product doesn't gain traction--essentially Google is playing a Xanatos Gambit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Microsoft may have actually come up with a decent product that will challenge market share?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Apple will license its patent but not look-and-feel. I don't have a problem with that. It's not that hard to make a device that looks and feels different - if Microsoft can do it despite its own bureaucracy, then so can Google.
Sorry, but this is patently false. Percentage values of product are a usual way of setting rates.
No wonder we don't have any wi-fi enabled cars.
Federal Trade Commission staff have already formally recommended that Googorola be sued for anti-trust violations over its FRAND patent licensing practices. This was in the news a couple weeks ago, but of course you'll never see it on Slashdot (alias "Google's buddy"). The agency really needs to get on with it.
That's like saying someone with a gun is shooting at you, but you say "guns are not fair".
Do you let yourself hamstring yourself and not use guns to fight back or do you fight back with guns and have people claim you're a bad person for using guns?
What is ideal is not always practical, but one can always aim for the ideal case. Google wants(I think) the ideal case, but must play dirty if they want to survive.
This is my view on the subject and am not in anyway trying to say that I am right and others are wrong.
But Google owns that part of Motorola now, so Google can just tell Motorola to sue MS.
Sorry to disappoint you here, but MS actually sued Motorola here because they are being whiny and don't want to pay FRAND rates. 2.25% is nothing for being able to use Wifi on your device - how much would you pay for a Surface if it didn't have Wifi on it? Or rather, if you were offered a Surface without Wifi, how much more would you be willing to pay to get Wifi? Significantly more than 2.25% - probably closer to 50% at least, considering a tablet without Wifi is pretty useless - which means that this patent will give returns of more than 15x the licencing cost - which is extremely Fair and Reasonable.
MS could get a better deal (less than 2.25%) if they were willing to do a patent trade with Motorola, where the 2.25% was exchanged for the use of patent(s) of similar value, but MS (and Apple) aren't happy with that because they don't want to share with any of the Android device manufacturers (never mind Google), so they are stuck with the 2.25%.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
The visceral reaction to Android by Jobs was due the fact that Google's Smichdt was on Apple's board at the time of the initial development of the iPhone and it was really hard not to say that he was more of a corporate spy than a honest board member from a partner company, at least from Jobs POV. Who wouldn't be pissed of because being backstabbed by a person you trusted?
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Have you been paying attention? Asking for a percentage of retail price is the normal, regular, standard way of doing things. Everyone does it--Motorola, Qualcomm, Samsung, etc.
The only reason why Apple/Microsoft are complaining is that normally the licensee agrees to cross-license some of their own patents instead of paying cash. Apple/Microsoft either don't have patents that others want or else don't want to cross-license them.
If by refusing them access you mean Apple and Google couldn't come to an agreement on a renegotiation for the new features. For any reasonable person wanting more branding rights and increased integration with it's services is far from a refusal.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57520862-37/apple-google-deal-took-a-wrong-turn-over-directions-report-says/
Yes, Google can do no wrong. Any instances of where they seem to be the bad guys is because you haven't understood it right.
"You're understanding it wrong!"
Yeah, it's not like Apple is suing everyone left and right. Reap what you sow, bitches. You won't see me shedding a tear for poor old Apple.
I agree, I'm usually on Google's side, but this time I'm very disappointed that they're sinking to MS and Apples level of stifling "innovative" products
Google has historically exhibited no respect for the intellectual property rights of others. It's the company culture, and it's perpetuated by a desperation of Google management to maintain growth and profitability in ad revenue, because Google knows no other way to make money than to copy others in order to keep the eyeballs coming back. This is not innovation and, in the long run, this stifles innovation.
A percentage of a device is discriminatory. If Microsoft, or Apple, wants to create a gold plated diamond encrusted phone that would retail for hundred of thousands, why should they have to give 2.25% of hundreds of thousands to license a patent on a wifi part?
Price discrimination _is_ discrimination!
Doesn't Motorola/Google already get royalties from the wifi chip makers?
Do they want 2.25% of the chip; plus 2.25% of the circuit board; plus 2.25% of the device; plus 2.25% of the system; plus 2.25% of ...
Nothing, which is precisely why they usually cross-license instead.
A manufacturer can't cross-license unless it itself owns patents that the other patent holder wants to practice. A startup often won't have a lot of patents to bring to the table, nor will a nonpracticing entity (NPE) be willing to cross-license.
"Patent" is related to "patently", as in patently obvious.
The deal is that if you publish your invention, you have the right, for a limited time, over whether anyone else is allowed to use it. The inventor gets a reward for his effort and creativity. Manufacturers can profit from it because if the invention is good plenty of people will want to buy one. Consumers get a new thing, whether it's a better mousetrap or whatever. Looks like a win-win-win to me.
The concept of a hidden patent simply doesn't make sense. If you don't want to publish, you can take the trade secret path.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
NDAs in this case are an industry standard.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
...and the cops will throw you both in jail under "mutual combatant" statutes. No winners here...
It's not a patent war, and Microsoft already knew what it was getting into. The Motorola patent was disclosed as part of proposing some open standards. When Motorola created those standards they promised to license them on a "fair and reasonable" basis. Everyone else who implemented the standard negotiated an agreement with Motorola.
Until Microsoft came along. Rather than negotiate a reasonable fee, Microsoft found a friendly judge in their home state of Washington and asked him to set a rate. Microsoft hasn't been contributing to the open standards, so they're trying to get the open standards devalued to increase the value of their own patents. There's a good piece on the subject that Groklaw posted back in September after a German judge told Microsoft to play nice and Microsoft responded by taking their marbles and running back to Seattle to find a friendlier judge.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
IMO, its a risky move by Google.
Since Microsoft is already hitting Google with everything they've got, there's no point in Google not fighting with all they've got too. For goodness sake, Microsoft is burning half a billion dollars a quarter on their online services division - almost entirely products designed to try to spoil the party for Google. The level of fail is laughable, but the attempt is there. Two billion dollars a year is a pretty significant corporate investment in sinking the other guy. And then there's collusion with Apple and Nokia. And then there are all the lawsuits against both Google and their Android partners, attempts to get products blocked in every court in the world, inside jobs in government to get Google's products blocked from adoption by governments, malicious advertising, and on and on and on.
"It's a risky move by Google" is only relevant if Microsoft isn't already doing all they can. That's a threatening thing to say, like "or Microsoft will respond negatively." Since Microsoft is already doing their worst, there is no additional risk at all.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This is entirely different.
1. MS brought Motorola to court.
2. They think 2.25% is high for a patent which allows them to use Wifi. Seriously, how much value does using Wifi add to the device? Maybe 50%? So, a 15x return on investment for this patent, which seems Fair and Reasonable.
3. Other companies also get the 2.25% first offer, but most of them are willing to cross-licence patents so they pay less. MS isn't willing to do this, so they have to pay the full 2.25%.
4. A lot of R&D went into developing Wifi tech, which is why this got FRAND status anyway. Are you saying people shouldn't get reimbursed for their R&D if they release it freely and agree to a lower licence cost so that it can be a standard? 2.25% is VERY low for something as complicated as Wifi. MS wants 2.25% just for their stupid long-filenames VFAT.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
That said, you'll not find a lot of companies that have sunk as low as Microsoft. Yeah, there are companies that have done worse things, but you don't find them on every Main Street in America.
On the contrary, Casey's General Store. Maybe not the entire US but most of the midwest.
Last year my house was burglarized and a box of checks stolen, among other things. The thieves proceeded to cash forged checks all over Illinois. When contacted by the merchants for the bad checks, all were cooperative but two -- Shop n Save and Casey's General (gas station/convinience store). Even after being told the checks were fraudulently forged, they contacted the Sangamon County State's Attorney and tried to prosecute me -- several times. When the SA got tired of them, they sent collection agencies after me. When the second contacted me I blew up and told them that one more god damned letter was going to have me filing a slander suit against them, Casey's, and anybody else involved, which stopped the madness.
AFAIK Microsoft has NEVER been so evil. Shop n Save was almost as bad, trying to collect on a fifteen year old check my ex-wife had bounced without my knowledge, years after I divorced her and declared bankrupcy. I must add, trying to collect FROM ME what my ex-wife owed was bad, but trying to collect a debt after bankrupcy is a felony.
The love of money is the root of all evil.
Free Martian Whores!
I am STILL confused by your statements!
"They CAN, and it would remain legal in Germany, however, they were ordered not to."
Ordered not to...
Perhaps that means that they cannot? What does "ordered not to" mean to you other than the judge is saying they cannot enforce the ban in another country?
How much value does having Wifi add to the Surface? Say 50%? I know I wouldn't buy a Surface without Wifi unless it cost at least 1/3 less...
So, this patent gives more than 15x return on licence fees. Sounds pretty Fair and Reasonable to me.
Hell, Microsoft gets more than 2.5% on Android devices ($15) just to use VFAT long filenames. Talk about skewed perceptions of value.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Easy way around it, sell the wifi module separately... easy enough to do in a car, though pretty difficult in a phone or tablet.
And if they say chipsets value to that device is 2.25% of the device then how is that a misuse of the system? Also that is one POSSIBLE implication, it could also imply that you must treat everyone equally in negotiations. Who are you to decide what possible implication is the proper one? I think the standards body who made the terms are the proper ones to decide that.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
They invalidated the Germans ruling by requiring Motorola to not enforce it. It is kinda like how the US government does not set speed limits, but by tying funding for interstates to set speed limits how they want they actually do set speed limits
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Where does it state this in the FRAND agreement? If the wifi patent is worth 2.25% why should they not have to?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Hey Evil Kineval, I was talking about Patents, not wars.
Your analogy is flawed. People aren't dying, at least I hope not, over patents. The patent litigation is dumb regardless of whom is suing whom.
Don't be so serious.
That wasn't what the original poster said. I don't disagree with you. I disagree with the original statement that Google had to develop it for Apple.
defining "fair and reasonable"?
I suspect that, much in the way the Samsung/Apple case started out, the 2.5% is something intended to start negotiations with. They likely expect Microsof to come back with something just as unreasonably low. Reality is expected to come out somewhere in between.
Still, what Google trough Motorola is trying to do is to pull a Rambus over wireless networking technology. Thats as low they can get. If Microsoft's case is meritless then it should be discarded, but Google nor Samsung, or the holding managing Nortel patents shouldn't use standard essential patents in this way. What's next? HP should have many networking patents of their own, and from their purchases of DEC and Palm. Shall we pay to HP every time we purchase a printer with a NIC?
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
That is a _stupid_ way to measure the value of a feature. I could counter that without a screen, surface would be worth precisely nothing. Or without the flash storage. O h.264 codecs. So basically, without those features, you would have to pay me to accept the surface.
Which is nonsensical.
You are just making things up.
Firstly, many patents are not essential in the sense that it couldn't be done without them. Wifi could have been done without Motorola's patent. Motorola just happened to have patented a method that works, and this was included in the standard.
I (sort of) agree that reasonable is difficult to clearly define. But I think everyone can agree that asking for 2.25% is not reasonable because if other patent holders ask for the same, then more than 100% of the price of the product would go to the wifi patent holders. That's before we start thinking of other patents. And it is also unreasonable because the more patented technology you add to the product, the less realistic it becomes. So if Microsoft had to pay for the wifi patents, in addition to 3G and 4G patents, touch screen patents, USB patents, compression patents and so on, it would make any product impossible.
Secondly, non-discriminatory means no discrimination. Everyone pays the same amount. Anything other than offering the same license terms to everyone is discriminatory by definition. Cross-licensing discriminates against those without any patents (e.g. startups).
Google has a lot to lose by pursuing this, and I am no Microsoft fan.
Sure...
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/26/motorola-scales-back-itc-case-against-xbox/
Track everything everyone does online?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html
Circumvent the privacy settings in safari to track people online?
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/10/business/la-fi-google-ftc-20120810
Refuse to integrate turn by turn navigation on the iDevices to try and keep android relevant?
http://www.webpronews.com/google-maps-out-of-ios-6-over-voice-navigation-dispute-sources-say-2012-09
Although there are multiple sources on the last one, some of which make varying claims. Some claim that google refused to do it, others claim that google wanted apple to include latitude (a different google product), the ability to display ads, and the ability to track iOS users. While they aren't required to provide anything at all, it is definitely bad faith since they already had the code base and back end capable of doing so, they wanted to give Android a better map. It wasn't about the code, the work, or the complexity. Apple at one point (allegedly) even offered to pay to have them do it, and it was out right refused.
Is it difficult to understand the difference between can and if you do, you will be punished for it? Is it difficult to understand the difference?
I CAN for example, walk outside and pee in my neighbors yard. That doesn't mean that I won't get punished for it (should the police come, or my neighbor step outside).
Additionally, the judge ordered them not to until the case in the US is settled. After that, they can do whatever they want. It wasn't overruled, or invalidated, or did he say what the German courts can or can't do. The judge saw it as extortion, or coercion, and that IS ILLEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES. It doesn't matter that it happened in another country. You can't have a senator and a business man take a trip to europe, and then all of a sudden bribes are ok because it technically happened in another country. A company doing business in the US must abide by US law. Just like any company doing business in another country must abide by their law.
Most of the companies that hold FRAND patents publicly disclose their rates. Samsung's for example is 2.4% of the retail cost of a device. Most FRAND holders will accept a cross license as part or all of the payment depending on what is on offer. As Microsoft really doesn't have any really essential patents in that space they get to pay in cash. Welcome to the world of FRAND patents on communications related things.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121022054044954 for the discussion about Samsung being investigated.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
please remember that google announced that they were working on android before smichdt was on apple's board and the smichdt by all accounts left all iOS/iPhone meetings.
All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
How much exactly is FRAND?
FRAND is not a set cost, it is a negotiated cost.
FRAND stands for Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory. This means that Motorola does not have to give access to the patents for free, it just has to give access to the patents. When Google bought Motorola they told the FTC they would charge no more than 2.5% for FRAND patents and the FTC agreed. 2.25% is less than 2.5%.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Cool, i'll give it a shot. I'm still a FF fan, at the moment. Mostly because my experience is similar on the linux box and windows both.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
That still comes down to a US judge acting outside his jurisdiction.
It's like a British judge telling an Italian what he can do in France.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
So, VFAT is worth 2.25% but the standards-essential wifi-implementation patents aren't? What planet are you from? If MS was willing to cross-licence they could get away with far less than 2.25%, but they want to play hardball with their own patents still, so they've really chosen to bring this down on themselves.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
You are just making things up.
No, this stuff is widely available and I actually do know it. You could too if you actually put a little effort in.
Firstly, many patents are not essential in the sense that it couldn't be done without them.
That's not a correct understanding of essential. Essential means "you cannot implement the standard as it is now without this patent". It is not directly related to whether there was another way of doing the standard.
Wifi could have been done without Motorola's patent. Motorola just happened to have patented a method that works, and this was included in the standard.
That's also very unclear. Where there are several acceptable methods, one of which is not patented, the standards bodies normally have the obligation to take the one which is not patented. If they do take one which is patented that means either that patent was the only way they knew of to do something or that that patent was the best value for doing that thing. In either case, the patent must be valuable to the standard to be included in the standard.
I (sort of) agree that reasonable is difficult to clearly define. But I think everyone can agree that asking for 2.25% is not reasonable because if other patent holders ask for the same, then more than 100% of the price of the product would go to the wifi patent holders.
This argument has been clearly refuted in the related case law and discussions. Different patents have different levels of value depending on how important the problem they solve is. Look at Microsoft's FAT patent; the principle is completely obvious and almost directly equivalent to the UNIX directory (store file data a file); it just becomes, arguably, special enough to patent because of a particular choice of structure. There could be hundreds of trivial patents like Microsoft's FAT patent or Apple's touch gesture patents but any of those could be worked around by just making a different set of choices. Consider a patent like the invention of CDMA, on the other hand. This solves a whole bunch of problems (how to share a radio channel without device to device coordiation; data protection and tracking difficulty; multipath propagation etc.). Qualcomm survived for years more or less on that single patent alone.
Motorola's case is very clear.
That's before we start thinking of other patents. And it is also unreasonable because the more patented technology you add to the product, the less realistic it becomes. So if Microsoft had to pay for the wifi patents, in addition to 3G and 4G patents, touch screen patents, USB patents, compression patents and so on, it would make any product impossible.
Unfortunately, you may be right. That's not a bug, that's a feature. Patents exist specifically to stop other people from making products which compete with your products. For example, Microsoft tried to make it practically impossible to deliver Linux based navigation devices with access to FAT based storage. Tom Tom had to stop that. You are allowed to use patents because the patent holder is happy to let you. Look at the fact that Microsoft wants $20 per Android device for six "trivial" and "invalid" patents.
Normally, the fact that a patent is "essential" to a standard would make it more valuable, not less valuable. You, together with the other essential patent holders would have the right to block all others from entering a market and legally create what would effectively be a cartel. RAND terms are not designed to reduce that price; instead they are designed to keep the price more or less stable.
Secondly, non-discriminatory means no discrimination. Everyone pays the same amount. Anything other than offering the same license terms to everyone is discriminatory
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Hey Evil Kineval, I was talking about Patents, not wars.
The great thing about the right to self defence is it's completely scalable. From a guy who attacks you in a bar up to the level of a total Nuclear war the principle has a clear and applicable set of surrounding doctrines such as the use of "proportionate" responses (mostly required in Europe) and the lack of need for the same (clearly in Texas and some other parts of the USA).
Your analogy is flawed. People aren't dying, at least I hope not, over patents. The patent litigation is dumb regardless of whom is suing whom.
I think you need to look up the issues surrounding patents in medicine. Particularly, given the context, how the donations of the Gates foundation are used to shore up the killing of other patients through depriving them of access to key medication. Quite possibly the AIDS epidemic in Africa would have been solved by now were it not for patents.
Don't be so serious.
Well, as we've already discussed, the issue is deadly serious. However, I'm enjoying the discussion so feel free to continue.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Perhaps YOU don't understand what the word 'counter-attack' means.
Eh eh see what I did there.
It's also assault when the CEO of your supposed ally sits on your board, steals your mobile device strategy and you punch them in the face for it
What I said was I'm disappointed in Google because I consider the litigation route to be the low road. Ok or not didn't factor into the equation, supporting lawyers whose only purpose is to stop competition and kill possibly good products, in general not from MS specifically, did.
However, at the same time I understand why Google is suing MS and I like to see MS get what's coming to them for a) using another companies unlicensed technology to make profit for themselves and b) because they're not shy about suing others for doing the same.
That depends in how you think about things.
1) google, Motorola, and Microsoft are all American companies.
2) they have a case pending in his court room.
3) no matter the source, medium, or location, it is illegal to extort someone on a case to try and settle it.
4) regardless of what was done, google was applying pressure on Microsoft HERE to settle the case here out of court.
5) the fact that google did something that by itself was completely legal does not make the fact that doing it in the context and in coordination of the current case was illegal.
Now while I use the term extortion, IANAL. The actual charge(s) would likely be numerous and use different terms. Witness tampering, extortion, obstruction of justice, etc may all be valid charges, and they all say what google did was illegal.
I think I've made it pretty clear. If you don't understand it, I can't help you and I'm glad you are not a lawyer either because its not all that complicated.
Did you read what I said? MS brought Motorola to court, not the other way around. Motorola sent a letter setting out standard payment amounts as a starting point for negotiations on standard, absolutely necessary technology which they invented and MS is using, and MS took them straight to court claiming it is "unfair". This comes off to me as MS being litigatious, not Motorola (or, for that matter, Google).
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!