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.'"

Comments

Google Proxy War

[DevTechb]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

And Microsoft NEVER EVER did that... Right? Microsoft needs to go away because of all the horrible things they have done.

Re:Google Proxy War

[symbolset]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[somersault]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

And how much did want patent troll called Motorola Mobility (anyone buys that Chinese crap?) for their FRAND patents?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Desler]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[i_ate_god]

they own the company, mostly for the purposes of having these patents. Not really a proxy war anymore.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Toreo asesino]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Nerdfest]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Formorian]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[tgd]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[gmuslera]

You mean that Microsoft company that taxes each android device with their FAT patent?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

So, is your solution to give up and die or what?

Re:Google Proxy War

[wonkey_monkey]

is because you haven't understood it right.

I dunno, that sounds more like something Apple would say...

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[JWW]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[tgd]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep going, that phrase almost made sense. It has "words" at least.

Re:Google Proxy War

[jkrise]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Bumbles]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Ironhandx]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Because IE10 is better than chrome. Seriously. Try it.

Re:Google Proxy War

[sturle]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:Google Proxy War

[poetmatt]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[kelemvor4]

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

Re:Google Proxy War

[Formorian]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a stupid justification.

Bull-shill-shit!

Re:Google Proxy War

[somersault]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[JDG1980]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Google Proxy War

[thaylin]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[ozmanjusri]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[thaylin]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Dishevel]

Other than recording shit that people were screaming at the top of their lungs while driving by...
What exactly has Google done?

Re:Google Proxy War

[oh_my_080980980]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[gl4ss]

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..

Re:Google Proxy War

[KingMotley]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[tibman]

What makes it better? are you using the win7 version?

Re:Google Proxy War

[KingMotley]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[NatasRevol]

Demanding more than FRAND costs?

Re:Google Proxy War

[tgd]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[samkass]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[higuita]

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

Re:Google Proxy War

[DMiax]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Formorian]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

How much exactly is FRAND?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Formorian]

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".

Re:Google Proxy War

[thetoadwarrior]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[ArhcAngel]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[lcam]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[the_B0fh]

Funny how this is considered flame bait. Sad that we cannot have disagreements any more.

Re:Google Proxy War

[the_B0fh]

Err, who said they had to *write* that?

They refused to allow Apple access that.

Big difference.

Re:Google Proxy War

[rtfa-troll]

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

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this is patently false. Percentage values of product are a usual way of setting rates.

Re:Google Proxy War

[drinkmoreyuengling]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[KingMotley]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[painandgreed]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Bengie]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Bengie]

But Google owns that part of Motorola now, so Google can just tell Motorola to sue MS.

Re:Google Proxy War

[jkflying]

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%.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Kyusaku Natsume]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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/

Re:Google Proxy War

[jo_ham]

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!"

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has been sued left and right based on the success of the iPhone.

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[vakuona]

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!

Re:Google Proxy War

[Hognoxious]

"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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[symbolset]

NDAs in this case are an industry standard.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the cops will throw you both in jail under "mutual combatant" statutes. No winners here...

Re:Google Proxy War

[symbolset]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[mcgrew]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[jvkjvk]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[green1]

Easy way around it, sell the wifi module separately... easy enough to do in a car, though pretty difficult in a phone or tablet.

Re:Google Proxy War

[thaylin]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[thaylin]

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

Re:Google Proxy War

[thaylin]

Where does it state this in the FRAND agreement? If the wifi patent is worth 2.25% why should they not have to?

Re:Google Proxy War

[the_B0fh]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Kyusaku Natsume]

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?

Re:Google Proxy War

[KingMotley]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[KingMotley]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[cynyr]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[cynyr]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[mjwx]

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%.

Re:Google Proxy War

[tibman]

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Hognoxious]

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.

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.

Re:Google Proxy War

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Google Proxy War

[KingMotley]

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.

2.25% of nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

unless someone shows good sales numbers for the surface

Re:2.25% of nothing

[symbolset]

Microsoft is purposefully only selling the Surface in their own sales channels - own stores and online - explicitly so others can't report data about how it's doing. They want to tell us it's "sold out". They knew they had to do this in advance, or you would buy the thing at Target and Target would tell you that it's not selling.

Re:2.25% of nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Gosh. That must be why Apple does it too!

Re:2.25% of nothing

[organgtool]

I was wondering why I couldn't find it at any retail stores and your explanation makes sense. However, it is this very process that is killing the chances of the Surface having any success - most people want to play with the device before they commit their hard-earned money on it. It's a shame: for once Microsoft puts a lot of thought into the design and usability of a device and then uses a distribution method that guarantees it won't gain any traction.

The Surface: two and half years late, limited app availability, high-end pricing, and virtually impossible to try before you buy. That's a formula for success!

Re:2.25% of nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

I can buy iPads, iPods, and iPhones from Walmart and Target. Macs can be had from Best Buy. Do you have a real point?

Re:2.25% of nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the big concern when the Surface was announced that Microsoft would be alienating its partners by entering a market previously they left to OEMs? Selling Surface exclusively in their own retail channels seems to be an excellent compromise between entering the market and not stepping on OEM toes; If Microsoft is only selling the Surface in Microsoft channels then Asus, HP, et al. can't complain about Surface cannibalizing sales in Best Buy or Target. This seems much more likely than your conspiracy theory.

Another point to remember is that it doesn't matter how well the Surface sells as a singular device, but how well Windows RT devices sell collectively. If someone doesn't buy a Surface, but instead buys a Asus VivoTab instead of an iPad or Nexus tablet, that's a net win for Microsoft even if they're not making the hardware profits.

Re:2.25% of nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. Apple doesn't restrict sales to its own channels. You can get an iPad at freaking WalMart.

Re:2.25% of nothing

[bluefoxlucid]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Apple%AE+-+iPad%AE+2+with+Wi-Fi+-+16GB+-+Black/1945531.p?id=1218303031896&skuId=1945531&ref=06&loc=01&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=1945531&extensionType=pla:g&s_kwcid=PTC!pla!!!41801918959!g!!21144920839

Sales/usage figures for iPhone you can get by looking at mobile networks usage on Sprint or AT&T. If they refuse to release that, check FaceBook about who's posting from their fucking iPhone for an approximation.

Re:2.25% of nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the screen-peeling issue that was brought up on Slashdot a few days ago.

Re:2.25% of nothing

[Hognoxious]

I know they're sold through independent retailers (Fnac don't seem to have anything else, as I discovered when trying to find a Nokia headset) but seriously, Walmart? Dirty fat people holding their stuff isn't exactly good for the brand image.

Re:2.25% of nothing

[submit your site]

Microsoft is purposefully only selling the Surface in their own sales channels - own stores and online - explicitly so others can't report data about how it's doing. They want to tell us it's "sold out". They knew they had to do this in advance, or you would buy the thing at Target and Target would tell you that it's not selling.

Microsoft is a biggest company in usa. Microsoft have many product in online. so their have many marketing channels. Microsoft's new Surface tablet problem will solve.

But if GOOGLE does it

[kiriath]

It's alright.

If anyone is on Google's side in this, you're a bloody hypocrite.

"This is different, blah blah" yeah shut up.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Vanderhoth]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Hentes]

Microsoft sued Android first, Google is just defending.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[jkrise]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Microsoft sued Motorola Mobility (well known patent troll) because of FRAND patents.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[symbolset]

"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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[jkrise]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[MickyTheIdiot]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[tgd]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Vanderhoth]

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!!!! "

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[kiriath]

Hey man, My assertions are as hairy as they come.

Bald assertions... pssh.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[somersault]

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..

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[kiriath]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[ilsaloving]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[HCase]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Hentes]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[NatasRevol]

Moto-goog charging 2.25% for FRAND patents is NOT a counter attack. No matter what you claim.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[NatasRevol]

Yes, when x 2.25

Which is the whole point of this brouhaha.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[minijedimaster]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[drinkmoreyuengling]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[NatasRevol]

Perhaps you don't understand what the word 'counter-attack' means.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[ilsaloving]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[bluefoxlucid]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[jkflying]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[jkflying]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[kiriath]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[vakuona]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[vakuona]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[jkflying]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[rtfa-troll]

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

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps YOU don't understand what the word 'counter-attack' means.

Eh eh see what I did there.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[Vanderhoth]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it

[jkflying]

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).

Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[jabuzz]

I am quite sure that Microsoft don't even need to offer FRAND patents to get the rate lowered. Other patents such as say those on say FAT would probably work as well :-)

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[rsmith-mac]

We can be pretty sure that Google isn't charging everyone else 2.25%. Google only holds a couple of significant 802.11 patents while organizations like CSIRO hold a larger number of more important patents. If 2.25% was the base rate for just Google's share, you'd be losing 10%+ of your revenue just to 802.11 patent holders.

This is just Google taking the screws to Microsoft to make a point. They've already tried this once before with H.264 (another tech that they hold only a few patents), going after Microsoft for 2.25% of Windows and Xbox revenue.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

That would work but they probably are not in the mood to do that, since other phone makers will want their deals adjusted.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[JDG1980]

We can be pretty sure that Google isn't charging everyone else 2.25%. Google only holds a couple of significant 802.11 patents while organizations like CSIRO hold a larger number of more important patents. If 2.25% was the base rate for just Google's share, you'd be losing 10%+ of your revenue just to 802.11 patent holders.

Almost everyone else cross-licenses to get a lower rate (or no royalties at all, if their portfolio is big enough). MS and Apple don't have any FRAND patents of their own to cross-license, so they are obligated to pay full freight (2.25% per device).

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you back that up? Wouldn't something like that defeat the "Non-Discriminatory" aspect of FRAND? The whole idea behind FRAND is that by holding this standards patent you can't prevent new entrants to the market by charging them exorbitant amounts of money compared to established players in the field. It's reasonable to assume that new entrants would not have extensive patent portfolios to offer up as a bargaining tool, thus it seems to me charging different rates contingent on cross-licensing deals defeats the entire purpose of FRAND.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

If 2.25% was the base rate for just Google's share, you'd be losing 10%+ of your revenue just to 802.11 patent holders.

The solution is simple: sell the device for 110%!
Tadaa, problem solved, no one was hurt, and the patent system works LALALALAA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be. 2.25% I would consider unfair. I dunno why Google is making a point with Microsoft. I thought Apple was their true competition?

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost everyone else cross-licenses to get a lower rate (or no royalties at all, if their portfolio is big enough). MS and Apple don't have any FRAND patents of their own to cross-license, so they are obligated to pay full freight (2.25% per device).

Are we forgetting about that giant package of Nortel patents Apple and Microsoft bought last year?

They'll end up settling and cross-licensing for far less. Microsoft isn't as stupidly dickish as Apple.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fair != Cheap" but FRAND also stands for "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory".

I'll break it down for you -

- Fair: No extorting, bundling, cross license, etc
- Reasonable: Everybody gets a good rate
- Non-discriminatory: Everybody gets the same deal

A 2.25% rate is not fair because it is intended to make people cross-license (Motorola said it wanted use of Apple's patents in exchange). A 2.25% rate is not reasonable because if all necessary patents were at similar rates the product would be uncompetitive (there are many other necessary patents for a mobile phone), and because the technology is more valuable because it is standardized so the reasonable price is based on the technology itself not that everybody needs it (they accepted FRAND terms and low rates in exchange for popularizing the technology). A 2.25% rate is discriminatory because some licensees get a different rate due to cross-licensing deals.

There's nothing frand about this 2.25% deal. It's entirely an attempt at extortion.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[thaylin]

No, that would not. Also no one is charging 2.25%, that is a negotiating price. In negotiations the seller starts slightly high and the buyer starts slightly low and you move to the center which is the best fair price. This is without taking into accounts other people cross licensing deals.

you can look at those peoples rates in cross licensing deals as 2 separate deals combined into one, one for motorola's patents and one for say nokias patents. What you get is a combined price that comes from the different aspects of the 2 deals.

When you have no patents to offer then you dont get the benefit of a combined separate deal that lowers the price, that does not defeat the purpose of the non discriminating price because when you seperate the 2 deals in the first option you still get about the same price.

Also nothing int eh FRAND terms says you have to charge the 2 people the same price, just that it has to be fair and non discriminating. So if you start at 2.25 for everyone and then come down from their you are still being non discriminating even if you come to different prices since not all negotiating teams are equal.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like you've got all your knowledge of FRAND from poor reading of Wikipedia article.

Fair does mean no extorting and bundling, but even your presumable source says "requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs)". Cross-licensing that counts as part of cost is not "for free".

Reasonable is most complicated to decide and price is definitely linked to valuability of patents. Therefore some key patents may be more expensive than others - so I don't see what you was trying to prove.

Non-discriminatory means everyone gets the same initial offer, same opportunities and same range of granted rights. Again, quoting your presumable source:

As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can’t change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee.

Please, do improve your reading comprehension.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[bluefoxlucid]

Cross-licensing causes the actual costs to be 0%. Microsoft has nothing of value to cross-license.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[maccodemonkey]

MS and Apple don't have any FRAND patents of their own to cross-license, so they are obligated to pay full freight (2.25% per device).

I'm pretty sure Apple does have FRAND patents, especially in H.264. Apple and Microsoft have also been buying out groups of FRAND patents.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[thetoadwarrior]

Fair might not mean cheap but FRAND stands for Fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. I think there is a case for it not being reasonable and unless they charge everyone that then it is discriminatory.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[thaylin]

It is a starting point they use for everyone.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[thaylin]

Not even remotely close to being the definition to reasonable.

Re:Fair != Cheap for one party

[BasilBrush]

US patents are 20 years (or in some circumstances 17 years.) Anything to do with FAT is well out of patent protection.

Possibly something in FAT32 might be protected. But I suspect not.

mmm

[Anonymous Coward]

They should just give Motorola the $60 and have done with it.

Hidden agenda?

[brunes69]

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?

Re:Hidden agenda?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple could be doing the same with their 'frivolous' cases, but you'd never se it that way would you. In your eye's google can do no wrong

Patent for the obvious.

[concealment]

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.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[jkrise]

It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.

Are we really handing patents out for this?

Yes, indeed. Motorola has got patents on WiFi technology on pretty much any device. But consider: Apple has patents on the external shape and icons of the iPad. That is infinitely much worse; and even worse is that Apple feels that 'innovation' is worth $20 per device copying the rounded rectangular shape.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[somersault]

Yes, they really hand out patents for useful inventions. Just because everyone uses the invention, doesn't mean that there can't be a patent on it.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out what's related to a hdmi connector :)
http://www.google.com/patents/USD574779?dq=hdmi&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XqSjUNS7EaeU0QXvioDIAg&ved=0CEIQ6AEwAw

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Sarten-X]

I'll also add that we hand out patents for useful inventions to the people who worked out the invention's problems (or at least we try to). No, putting a power connector in an electronic device isn't patent-worthy. Designing a physically-tiny connector that's capable of transferring significant (charging) power, resistant to accidental damage, also usable for data transfer, and durable through millions of use cycles to boot, is something that is definitely worth a patent, but it'll cost you hundreds of hours of planning and testing time to get it.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[teg]

It sounds like Motorola has patented using Wi-Fi on tablets.

Are we really handing patents out for this?

Yes, indeed. Motorola has got patents on WiFi technology on pretty much any device. But consider: Apple has patents on the external shape and icons of the iPad. That is infinitely much worse; and even worse is that Apple feels that 'innovation' is worth $20 per device copying the rounded rectangular shape.

Actually, I think extortion on standard essential FRAND patents are far worse than trying to prevent someone from almost xeroxing the device. There are many ways to create devices (cell phones and tablets looked really different before the iPhone), but a standard is just that... a standard. And to get your patent included in a standard, you make promises that should be upheld.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[jkrise]

There are many ways to create devices

Do you have a circular television or a triangular radio? What is so innovative about a rectangular shape that is slightly rounded at the edges? My Casio calculator 30 years ago had the same shape.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[thaylin]

Say what? First how are the promises not being upheld. The promises are defined in the contract, not by MS. There is not a specific rate that must be offered, and negotiations are allowed as part of that promise.

Also something does not have to be part of a standards body to be a standard. At this point certain shapes that have been known to work best are defacto standards, and not using them means inferior products.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[IndustrialComplex]

In general, I agree with you. However I find it to be 'distasteful' that so many patents are not intended to recoup cost and earn money on the invention, but are instead used to block out competition on tangential products.

Inventing a new Wodidgit and patenting it, then demanding royalties from anyone using the new Wodidgit is one thing. However, patenting the interface to the Wodidgit and then preventing anyone from producing compatible support products is one aspect of the patent system I hate.

When I worked for a major defense contractor, one of the biggest draws for acquiring a new contract wasn't that the contractor would be able to produce 30,000 vehicles and earn money on the sale of them. What had them giddy was the fact that they were planning on patenting everything down to the shape of the door hinge so that no one else could EVER support that vehicle except for the original prime contractor. In 20 years, that vehicle would be replaced, and the supply/repair/service market would be dead from the perspective of the original design. In the meantime the original Prime contractor would have a stranglehold on any new 'competitions' because they OWNED the design of the vehicle. Who could submit a bid if they then would have to purchase from the original Prime the designs/models/licenses.

Again, I have no issue with people earning a royalty for their patents, but I think that there should be an exception for support/access/interfaces to that patented object.

In the corporate world with things like the new Apple connector its annoying because it fragments the market and I don't get to choose from ALL of the speaker docks, etc. Instead I get to choose my phone, and then I get to choose from a subset of docks which never seem to have the features/look I want. It divides up the engineering/design world for no good reason.

In the government contractor world, it's really annoying that the government doesn't demand rights to designs/interfaces/etc and provide them back in competitions as GFI. (It never reaches the competition stage many times, because the sole source justification will often state 'xyz company owns the design of abc therefore there is no competitor'.

Bugs the hell out of me.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[gQuigs]

> xeroxing the device

I'm sorry you have violated Xerox's Corporation trademark on the use of the protected phrase "xerox". According to Xerox corporation "you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox Brand copying machine".

I think Trademarks are mostly ok how they are, as opposed to the insanity's that are copyright and patents.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Motorola is an expert in RF. Of course they would have patents on this sort of stuff. Its real work that involves time, money and brain power.

It seems like the question is not of validity (like rounded corners/slide to unlock), but the value of the patents that is in dispute. FRAND doesn't mean the patents are free, but that they are "fair and reasonable." Is 2.25% fair? I don't know, but it is ridiculous that some people think it should be free and that rounded corners or slide to unlock should be verboten.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Sarten-X]

Absolutely.

I'm a fan of reform to reduce the life of patents, preferably based on industry (or more precisely, based on the time it takes to bring a new product to the applicable market and succeed). Software patents could be applicable for perhaps one year. A vehicle or other major physical item could be five. The only thing I could see as still being 20 years is household goods that aren't expected to ever need repair.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the government that sometimes demands that a vendor hand over design data to a "second source"? That happens a lot with electronic components. Is it just other corporations that demand second sources?

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[blueg3]

But consider: Apple has patents on the external shape and icons of the iPad. That is infinitely much worse; and even worse is that Apple feels that 'innovation' is worth $20 per device copying the rounded rectangular shape.

That is a design patent, not a utility patent. They're nothing alike, except for the word "patent". A design patent doesn't cover an innovation at all, it covers the non-functional appearance aspects of a functional object. For example, the external shape and icons of a branded product that are not critical to how it functions but are characteristic of that product. A design patent is supposed to be narrowly-defined. Its function is not to prevent competitors from making a similar product, but rather to prevent competitors from making a knock-off of your product.

For example, your average Android phone wouldn't infringe on an iPhone design patent. They look and behave similarly, but not the same. You can tell the difference. Now go to a market in China and pick up a knock-off iPhone. It looks exactly like an iPhone, it has the same UI widgets as an iPhone, and it's pretty hard for a casual observer to tell it apart from an iPhone. But it's not. That's a design patent infringement.

Of course, how well this works in practice comes down to how courts decide individual cases.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Too little, too late in the mobile device space .... wireless charging is just starting to make inroads

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[mcgrew]

insanity's

Insanity's methods are in your post, young padiwan. It's insanities.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, I agree with you. However I find it to be 'distasteful' that so many patents are not intended to recoup cost and earn money on the invention, but are instead used to block out competition on tangential products.

Inventing a new Wodidgit and patenting it, then demanding royalties from anyone using the new Wodidgit is one thing. However, patenting the interface to the Wodidgit and then preventing anyone from producing compatible support products is one aspect of the patent system I hate.

...

In the government contractor world, it's really annoying that the government doesn't demand rights to designs/interfaces/etc and provide them back in competitions as GFI. (It never reaches the competition stage many times, because the sole source justification will often state 'xyz company owns the design of abc therefore there is no competitor'.

Bugs the hell out of me.

And that's exactly how its supposed to work. Customers decide if they will or will not award their business to parties that keep their technology proprietary. But it's NOT OK for competitors to violate patent law simply because they want in on the action and then demand only monetary compensation after the fact.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be joking - this organisation just used that design patent to screw the launch of Samsung's Android alternatives. You can't say that it only applies to direct knockoffs because that isn't how Apple is using it.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not point telling you to be creative if you're stuck 30 years in the past still using a calculator. Calculators are on computers now. Shesh....

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[teg]

> xeroxing the device

I'm sorry you have violated Xerox's Corporation trademark on the use of the protected phrase "xerox". According to Xerox corporation "you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox Brand copying machine".

I think Trademarks are mostly ok how they are, as opposed to the insanity's that are copyright and patents.

I mostly agree there... software patents should go the way of the dodo bird, and other patents are in big need of a reform as well. In my opinion (which is just that), Samsung deserves a big slap on the wrist for trying so hard to make their initial Android phones look like the iPhone - the physical device, the OS (Android modified to look more like the iPhone), the icons etc. And then everybody should just move on, they don't look identical anymore.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[goose-incarnated]

That is a design patent, not a utility patent. They're nothing alike, except for the word "patent". A design patent doesn't cover an innovation at all, it covers the non-functional appearance aspects of a functional object. For example, the external shape and icons of a branded product that are not critical to how it functions but are characteristic of that product. A design patent is supposed to be narrowly-defined. Its function is not to prevent competitors from making a similar product, but rather to prevent competitors from making a knock-off of your product.

It's quite sad that people think that a whole new type of patent, the design patent, was needed to prevent competitors making a knockoff. You do realise that what you are effectively saying is that some things should be covered by both trademark and patents? FWIW, trademark doesn't only cover naming and branding, but also knock-offs, even if they are named differently.

Oh, yeah ... emphasis mine in the quoted material

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[blueg3]

Trademark only protects against competitors creating confusion about the source of a product. A design patent protects against a competitor copying your characteristic design even if they make clear the source of the product.

Some things are covered by trademark and design patent (e.g., the Coca-cola bottle), but for the most part, a design patent provides a very different set of protections than a trademark. (A trademark prevents you from making a device called an iPhone, even if it looks different. A design patent prevents you from making a device that looks just like an iPhone, even if it's clearly not an iPhone.)

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[blueg3]

Lawyers are always going to recommend you sue another party whenever reasonable. What the intent of a design patent is and how it ends up being actually used aren't necessarily the same thing. More's the pity.

Of course, both sides have differing views on the facts. Apple thinks that Samsung intentionally designed their tablet to look and behave like an iPad so that it could better compete against the iPad and, in doing so, made design choices that are covered under one of Apple's design patents. Samsung thinks that's a bunch of crap.

Re:Patent for the obvious.

[goose-incarnated]

Trademark only protects against competitors creating confusion about the source of a product[...] A trademark prevents you from making a device called an iPhone, even if it looks different.

I'm not too sure that that is correct - a trademark is supposed to prevent visual knockoffs of your product; it was supposed to prevent a competitor creating lookalikes (which is what most of the legislation says). The trademark was not to protect the company, but to protect the public from knockoffs. Unfortunately, Apple argued exhaustively that their competitors product is easily confused with their own product, but they never even brought trademarks into it because the vague, nebulous and ultimately subjective "design patent" laws were used instead.

TBH, I'm not even sure how the argument for design patent laws got past even a cursory examination of existing law: what it proposes to fix was already fixed with trademark law (which prevented you from making a VCR identical to a sony one and calling it "pony", and similar things which harmed the consumer)

Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Even more ammunition for the ITC and EU case against Motorola/Google for FRAND abuse.

If (IF!) found guilty by TWO governmental entities on TWO continents : would those GooFans please stop defending/cheerleeding their "Do-Not-Evil"-BS-company? thx. Google is no less evil than every other public tech company. I'm so tired by the notion, in particular on /., that Google is the saviour of all geeks and people in general.

PS : Remember : no other company mentioned. Don't play the blame game.

Re:Nice

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

2.25% is fair

[Anonymous Coward]

It is near enough the standard default request in case there are no patent exchange.

Re:2.25% is fair

[hcs_$reboot]

Fair indeed. 2.25% of (small) is (even smaller)

$15 per Android device

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:$15 per Android device

[HCase]

Honest question. I don't see any reason why they would, but did those Microsoft patents need to fall under FRAND licensing agreements? There is a notable difference between the two scenarios if one is FRAND and one isn't.

Re:$15 per Android device

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think there's requirement for FRAND patents to be cheaper than arbitrary non-FRAND patent, therefore I can't see any notable difference between these two scenarios in this regard.

I don't think there's "can't sue me for infringement" requirement for FRAND patents either, so I can't see difference there too.

Maybe you can clarify your point?

Re:$15 per Android device

[aristotle-dude]

I think you are missing the nondiscriminatory part of FRAND. Patents licensed under FRAND terms have to be licensed to all parties in a similar fashion with similar rates. You cannot license them to one party for 5 cents per unit and then charge someone else a percentage of the entire device. That is not Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory.

Re:$15 per Android device

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are begging the question by presupposing that they demand different license rates from others. That is not logical.

Re:$15 per Android device

[thaylin]

That is actually not how the discriminatory part of frand works. There is nothing that states you cannot charge different amounts for patents for one person to another, otherwise there would be a set price for the patents.

Re:$15 per Android device

[thetoadwarrior]

If MS' patents aren't FRAND they can demand 50% if they want. The point of FRAND patents is stopping people from creating a standard and gouging everyone because they have to use it. It's not a standard you can ask for anything.

Re:$15 per Android device

[thaylin]

they are not gouging anyone, some evidence of this would be great if you are accusing them of this.

Re:$15 per Android device

[thetoadwarrior]

And explaination of how frand patents work isn't an accusation so don't get your fanboy panties in a wad.

Re:$15 per Android device

[thaylin]

I did not state you were, I stated IF you were then evidence would be great, Instead of logging attacks maybe you should be using some logic.

Re:$15 per Android device

[shutdown -p now]

FRAND generally doesn't get imposed from the outside. Rather, when there is a standard in development, and participants in that development declare that some of their patents apply, they draw up legal statements saying that such and such patent shall be provided under FRAND rules from there on - which is usually a requirement for participation in the process. Moto's 3G patents in question are like that, for example - you can see the corresponding documents online (I can dig out the links if anyone is interested).

Re:$15 per Android device

[Anonymous Coward]

That you are jumping to conclusions is implicit in your post; you're the one who used the pronoun "they" when the GP didn't even mention Google.

Re:$15 per Android device

[sjames]

They get around that with custom crafted price points. For example, a cross-licensed patent is accepted as payment or a price break is declared at a huge volume or with some special use case such that technically it's open for all but only one can actually take advantage of it.

Re:$15 per Android device

[thaylin]

The implicit conclusion I made in my post was that google was not gouging anyone, not that the poster was accusing them of doing so.

Re:$15 per Android device

[vakuona]

I think he understands very well what non-discriminatory menas. What you are describing in the second sentence is the textbook definition of discrimination. Yes, that is what is not allowed. Companies may try tricks to get around it but essentially, everyone who licenses the patent should pay the same amount ,volume discounts and the like notwithstanding.

imagine if tcp/ip was patented?

[Anonymous Coward]

how is some essential shit like wifi so burdened with patents? god damn.

Re:imagine if tcp/ip was patented?

[jkrise]

how is some essential shit like wifi so burdened with patents?

Worse shit like rounded rectangles, and locations and shapes of icons have been awarded patents. Besides, Motorola did not sue first; they are merely defending the unfair pitched battle against Android.

Re:imagine if tcp/ip was patented?

[nedlohs]

Because it was invented by people rather than having existed for millions of years in nature. And it's less than 20 years old so there are likely valid patents on some of the basics.

Re:imagine if tcp/ip was patented?

[gmuslera]

Essential shit like cellphones is even more burdened with patents.

Good for Motorola.

[kurt555gs]

Microsoft has devolved into a corporate raider (Nokia) and patent troll. (HTC, et al). A little of their own medicine is good for them.

BFD

[Anonymous Coward]

I want microsoft to buy me a pony.

That's not going to happen either.

No need to get the lawyers involved....

[sdo1]

Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue

So give them a couple hundred bucks and be done with it...

-S

Re:No need to get the lawyers involved....

[samjam]

You just struck gold.

MS don't want google to know how many surface tablets they are(n't) shipping, and that may be the reason to avoid the per-device payment.

hah hah

FRAND Patent Abuse

[whisper_jeff]

Anyone who supports this FRAND patent abuse because its Microsoft and, you know - fuck Microsoft, they deserve it, is being horribly shortsighted and a hypocrite. This is gross abuse of FRAND agreements and sets a dangerous president and, just because its Google vs Microsoft doesn't make it ok.

Abuse of FRAND patents is abuse of FRAND patents regardless of who does it and to whom it is done.

Re:FRAND Patent Abuse

[thaylin]

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.

fair and reasonable

[l3v1]

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.

Re:fair and reasonable

[js3]

fair and reasonable is actually quite simple. If you're charging everyone .5%and then charging a particular vendor 2.25% it's not fair and reasonable.

Re:fair and reasonable

[thaylin]

That is not exactly how it goes. If you are cross licensing and charging some people .5% and others 1% it can still be considered fair depending on the patents that are being cross licensed.

If someone does not want to cross license then 2.25% can still be considered fair, since that person does not want to offer anything and the body determines what is fair.

Also we are not talking about the price being charged but the price being offered. It would effectively end the negotiation and given an unfair advantage to people who do not want to cross license.

Re:fair and reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not exactly how it goes. If you are cross licensing and charging some people .5% and others 1% it can still be considered fair depending on the patents that are being cross licensed.

But if you offer your patent to someone at .5% + cross license of FRAND patent pool A, and that same someone else charges others $0.10 per unit for access to patent pool A, it probably would be a violation of FRAND obligations to refuse an offer of 0.5% + $0.10 per unit. You shouldn't be able to say "I demand access to your patent pool that is only offered at $10 per unit" to get that same .5% rate.

Chair throwing ability

[lord_rob the only on]

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.

Karma is a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

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'?

Re:Karma is a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of these standards should have been pooled at deep discount rates but weren't.

Should have according to who or what?

It's 2.25% for Apple.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The one loser is ... You

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Payback is a bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Why shouldn't Motorola get royalties?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[tepples]

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.

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[NatasRevol]

Too bad both of those are VERY rare.

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[tepples]

Perhaps Microsoft is test-marketing Surface in Microsoft retail stores because it wants to avoid shortages like those experienced during the launch of the Xbox 360.

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[mcgrew]

The nearest Microsoft retail store is a hundred miles away and I live in a city of 120,000. Epic fail. Who in their right mind would make a 200 mile round trip to see if a new Microsoft product sucked?

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[tepples]

The nearest Microsoft retail store is a hundred miles away and I live in a city of 120,000.

I live in Fort Wayne, Indiana, a city of over 200,000. The nearest Apple Retail Store is 90 miles away in Mishawaka.

Who in their right mind would make a 200 mile round trip to see if a new Microsoft product sucked?

People who already live in the test-market cities, or have friends or relatives who live there and visit them carrying a Surface. And they could easily be visiting for reasons other than just to show off the Surface.

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[Anonymous Coward]

M$ has retail stores? Not around here.

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[organgtool]

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but either way it's damn funny!

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[ron_ivi]

The nearest Apple Retail Store is 90 miles away in Mishawaka.

And that's why you can buy Apple products in Walmart and Target too. Who's case are you making here?

Re:Microsoft Store; word of mouth

[fermion]

For about half the states, the nearest MS store is in another state. For those in Hawaii, the means a looong plane ride. One reason this works for Apple is they have been very aggressive in opening stores. I have my choice of three. I will also complain how much the MS search sucks compared to the Apple search for stores. MS can only give a zip code, while at apple you can type in the name of your town or a zip code, in the same box mind you, and a nice map pops up. Reminds me when you had to reboot the MS computer to change a screen resolution.

2.5% of *all* Surface revenues?

[Gumbercules!!]

So that's like, what... 30 bucks or there abouts?

Attracting app developers without audience size

[tepples]

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?

Re:Attracting app developers without audience size

[gl4ss]

by giving them RT devices and constantly pressurising them with money, booze etc. to do so.

saying that "you MUST DO YOUR PORT NOW!!! OR YOU'LL BE LEFT OUT OF THE BOAT" doesn't hold that much weight if there's less than half a million potential users.

Re:Attracting app developers without audience size

[foniksonik]

Analytics data will pull out the numbers anyways.

Moto-trola

[goombah99]

They keep leaving the "t" out.

More than 44 different patent holders

[tepples]

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?

Re:More than 44 different patent holders

[jkrise]

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?

Very good question. Considering that the average smartphone infringes about 20,000 patents, very likely to happen as well.

At long last, the idiotic patent system will get fixed.

In the medium term, the open source Android is largely superior compared to the proprietary shit doled out by Apple and Microsoft; hence it needs all the support and ammunition it can get.

Re:More than 44 different patent holders

[Anonymous Coward]

In the medium term, the open source Android is largely superior compared to the proprietary shit doled out by Apple and Microsoft

Says all the (non-samsung) phone manufacturers going bankrupt by going to Android. HTC, LG, Sony, Lenovo, Motorola, ZTE, etc.

http://www.asymco.com/2012/11/14/google-vs-samsung/

Re:More than 44 different patent holders

[Anonymous Coward]

LG just sold out of Nexus 4s in less than 30 minutes yesterday. I think they'll do fine. Pretty sure Sony and Lenovo aren't going bankrupt either; and Motorola Mobility is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google. Asus released a very good earnings report recently, too.

Honestly, it seems like HTC is the only one who can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory here. What happened with them?

Re:More than 44 different patent holders

[shutdown -p now]

Nothing, which is precisely why they usually cross-license instead.

In this case, hopefully, this will result in a cross-license between Google/Moto on its WiFi and 3G patents, and Microsoft on its exFAT patents, and both companies get back to releasing products, without depriving their users of features or jacking up prices.

Re:More than 44 different patent holders

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

The ability to cross-license patents to reduce the rate from 2.25% to virtually zero. That's how it works. Except Microsoft thinks they can play by their own set of rules.

Oracle v. Google

[tepples]

Android isn't a company.

From Wikipedia's article about Android:

"Android, Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California in October 2003 by Andy Rubin (co-founder of Danger), Rich Miner (co-founder of Wildfire Communications, Inc.), Nick Sears (once VP at T-Mobile), and Chris White (headed design and interface development at WebTV)".

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)?

Re:Oracle v. Google

[tgd]

You mean other than an unsuccessful lawsuit from ORACLE (One Rich Anus Called Larry Ellison)?

Pretty sure Oracle and Microsoft are different companies. The lawsuits the GP post was talking about were by Microsoft, and were SOP for cross licensing IP between handset manufacturers.

It's a silent "t"

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep leaving the "t" out.

It's a silent "t" for the silent partner El Goog.

There is no news here

[sudden.zero]

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.

Re:But if GOOGLE does it [citation needed]

[Anonymous Coward]

if you say you're going to keep turning the other cheek

[citation needed]

Select cities before worldwide release

[tepples]

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.

2.25%... that comes out to what....

[AmazingRuss]

...34 bucks?

Roughly translated...

[Nethemas the Great]

Microsoft may have actually come up with a decent product that will challenge market share?

Not Accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Hello, FTC?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

percentage of total revenue is *normal*

[Chirs]

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.

Double dipping?

[Kaenneth]

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 ...

Cross-licensing not always the answer

[tepples]

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.

Re:Cross-licensing not always the answer

[shutdown -p now]

It's the general problem with the patent system, not with FRAND. Yes, today, it is cost-prohibitive to make many things without having a considerable patent portfolio, enough so that it excludes small players altogether. Changing that would require a complete overhaul of the patent system, though; it's silly to blame Moto (or even Apple) for it.

Re:Cross-licensing not always the answer

[drinkypoo]

That is unfortunate, but it doesn't apply to this situation, as Apple was offered the opportunity to chip in some of their obvious patents in exchange for access to the FRAND patents, and they declined. Apple wanted war and got it. It's unfortunate that patents can be used to prevent legitimate competition, and that is what is happening here, but in this battle between Apple and Everyone, only Apple is doing it. Apple is using necessary patents without licensing. Apple's patents are obvious, at least most of them, and nobody should need them. Apple is in the process of having this proven to them, and I only wish it would be good riddance, but it'll take more than this to kill Apple.

Re:Cross-licensing not always the answer

[vakuona]

This is about Microsoft vs Motorola, and has nothing to do with Apple.

Re:Cross-licensing not always the answer

[drinkypoo]

Well, I thought they had snuck into the conversation. But my mistake.

I cheer when anyone attacks Microsoft for any reason. I know it's petty. Sue me.

That's not the issue.

[Jaywalk]

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.

Oh? So someone put you in charge of defining...

[aklinux]

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.