Slashdot Mirror
Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue
An anonymous reader writes "On the opening day of a patent trial between Microsoft and Google-owned Motorola Mobility, Motorola filed a brief (PDF) arguing that the WiFi tech central to the case is also critical to Microsoft's new Surface tablet. Motorola says royalties totaling 2.25% of all Surface revenues is a good starting point. They wrote, 'Microsoft's new Surface tablet will use only 802.11, instead of cellular or wired connections, to connect to the internet. Without 802.11 capability, the Surface tablet would be unable to compete in the market, because consumers can readily select tablet devices other than the Surface that have 802.11 capability.' Microsoft, of course, says this figure is outrageous, given 'Motorola's promise to standards bodies to offer access to the "standard essential" patents on fair and reasonable terms.'"
unless someone shows good sales numbers for the surface
Microsoft, of course, says this figure is outrageous, given 'Motorola's promise to standards bodies to offer access to the "standard essential" patents on fair and reasonable terms.'"
They have - they offered access to the patents for 2.25% - all they have to prove to the court is that this is their standard opening offer to show that it is non-discriminatory and fair.
If Microsoft want to play, they should offer back some of their FRAND patents to get the rate lowered. That's how the system is meant to work. Oh, but wait, Microsoft is fairly new to this type of hardware so probably hasn't got a lot to offer in this category.
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
Well, Microsoft were claimed to be receiving $15 per Android device. Ar $600 for a device, 2.5% would be $15.
So what's the problem? Microsoft made claims that Android infringes just 6 dodgy patents. 802.11 is a core patent.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/MSvB&Nanswer.pdf
Patents such as : "Loading Status in a Hypermedia Browser Having a Limited Available Display Area."
Or "“Selection Handles in Editing Electronic Documents.”,
I don't see the problem with this, they dish it out but they don't take it? Their sales of Surface devices will be far less than Android devices, so they'll pay a lot less.
Not true. Microsoft sued Motorola Mobility (well known patent troll) because of FRAND patents.
You are the one making untrue statements. Motorola Mobility has competing products in the market, hence it is not a troll by any stretch. They are offering their WiFi patents in a FRAND compliant manner at 2.25% to ALL licensees.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
They also deserve anything they get with the ongoing extortion of Android/Linux 'patents' that they insist on NDAs to even discus. How that's considered remotely legal is beyond me, and I'm very disappointed with anyone paying them for that kind of extortion.
Um MS started this. Read up at Groklaw. Basically Moto sent a proposal around 2010 I think, I forget exactly. They wanted 2.25% (as a starting point for negotiations, esp since MS doesn't have any FRAND patents, normally companies license at a much lower rate but that lower rate is due to cross licensing of standard patents or other patents essential to the device from both sides).
MS didn't enter negotiations, they went to ITC and complained, and then alleged that Moto is not metting it's FRAND obligations. Then Moto sued in Germany. Germany ruled in their favor initially and imposed a ban. MS went to a seattle judge, who basically says he can overrule the Germany court, lifted the Ban, and says He'll set a fair and resonable price. I believe he ruled this way because his case started before the Germany case. I still think he's on Crack that he can overrule a foreign country judge, but w/e.
Now I wish this judge wasn't as biased and would be like the judge in Wisconsin. Apple did the same thing against Moto against these Frand patents. The judge in Wisconsin saw that Apple was just using the lawsuit for leverage or if didn't agree with the price the judge set, use that price as a negotiating price after the lawsuit. She dismissed with prejudice. MS is doing the same thing. Yet Seattle judge, back yard to MS, blah blah blah.
But Moto didn't start this war. They wanted to negotiate first, MS didn't want to pay/negotiated.
Microsoft has devolved into a corporate raider (Nokia) and patent troll. (HTC, et al). A little of their own medicine is good for them.
* Carthago Delenda Est *
It was Apple and Microsoft that started this war. Google is only winning the war that was brought to them. As they always have. It was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer who said "I'm going to fucking kill Google. I've done it before and I can do it again." Back then Google was 1/30th their current size. Today it's more of a fair fight, as the two companies are about equal in market cap, but back then it was more of an existential real threat.
Even today Google only sues back other companies that picked a fight.
I think that's only partially correct -- I'd bet the real motivation (relatively to the devices in question) is the fact that most of the large Android manufacturers have cross-licensed patents with Microsoft, but a few haven't, and I'd bet Google is getting a lot of pressure from them. Telecommunication patents are a VERY deep thicket, and its a very expensive market to be in if you don't have a competitive portfolio so you can even-steven cross-license with everyone else. Apple and Google both do not have portfolios that deep, and have to fight with their smaller portfolios, rather than cross licensing. There's enough history (and existing licensing) between Apple and Microsoft that they just worked it out. Apple is then very selective about their direct attacks against Google-related properties (Samsung, etc) Google, on the other hand, bought Motorola for its IP portfolio and appears to think going after Microsoft will be better than going after Apple in the middle of the Samsung mess. (Likely rightfully so, best not to get sucked into that quagmire by association...)
IMO, its a risky move by Google. Microsoft's patent portfolio is VERY deep in a lot of areas critical to Google, and this could backfire badly on them.
Of course, anyone who has negotiated anything always starts way higher than you actually will settle. I bet they won't, though -- deep down this is a proxy battle over the things that really matter to Google. They critically need people using Android, Chromebooks and the ilk to keep eyeballs looking at their ads. They haven't knocked Apple down a notch in tablets, so I think they're trying to pre-emptively do so before the tide of web-to-app usage shifts far enough that their revenues completely dry up. And Microsoft is hitting them online with Bing and in devices now.
You mean that Microsoft company that taxes each android device with their FAT patent?
If anyone is on Google's side in this, you're a bloody hypocrite.
If Google is spending money to keep the patent system going, that makes me mad. But if Google is using the patents it holds to attack people who are attacking it with patents they hold, that's called fighting back, and they would have to be fucking stupid not to do it. In addition, they're only attacking people I hate. There are lots of other people "infringing" on the painfully obvious patents they hold, but does anyone here really believe Google is going to go full patent-troll and attack them too if they succeed with their present lawsuits? I sure don't. But I do believe that Apple or Microsoft will.
This is different, and it's different until they behave otherwise. Motorola hasn't exactly been a saint in the past, so I'm willing to reserve judgment until this whole flap is over to see what they do next, but there is nothing inconsistent about Google's actions, nor is there anything inconsistent about rooting for them while they counterattack, and your bald assertions that there is does not make it so.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
is because you haven't understood it right.
I dunno, that sounds more like something Apple would say...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Microsoft supposedly gets x% cut of all android phones.
Turnabout is fair play.
The patent wars are a horrendus, hideous thing. My only hope is that they bring all the big tech companies so much pain that they eventually clamor to have the ridiculousness that is software patents eliminated.
I'll answer your retarded questions with another question. What low things do MS constantly do that they need to pay people to create hundreds of Slashdot accounts to post whiny little comments to try and improve their public image?
Why do you think it was a bad question? Its clear based on everything Google has been doing that it is, in fact, utilizing Motorola IP as a proxy for corporate Google attacking Microsoft. That's not related to a whiny little comment or improving any public image. Its a valid discussion point. You can be assured that Google (just like any company taking an action like this) has a great number of lawyers who have been formulating the strategy.
The lawsuit, as it is, doesn't make a damn bit of sense. They'll go at 2.25%, and it'll probably settle out at 1/4 of that, if they win at all. They'll spend a lot more money on lawyers than they'll ever get out of it. By any measure the multiple on costs of a lawsuit like this isn't high enough to warrant the risk of loss (or worse yet, a judgment that impacts other licensing agreements!)
I think the GP is quite correct -- why is Google using a wireless patent as a proxy? What is their motivation?
It seems to me its probably a few things:
- Sabre rattling, although this is probably dangerous given Microsoft's patent portfolio. (The patents around computing technologies are more significant to Google than anything related to mobile)
- A small enough actual cost to Microsoft that they'll pay it, and Google can use that as leverage in subsequent lawsuits.
- They could be close, but not close enough, in existing patent cross-licensing discussions that they're trying to force Microsoft's hand and sweeten an offer.
- An overzealous business unit manager decided to unilaterally take the action without considering the potential impact to the rest of Google.
- Motorola wants to exercise their IP portfolio prior to closing the deal with Google. I can't figure out if the deal has actually closed yet -- best I can tell, it hadn't as of a month or two ago. If it hadn't, maybe they want to take the action while its still "safe" to do so with regard to the rest of Google's business?
In either case, your dismissal of a valid question seems to be a lot more puzzling than the question itself being asked.
Keep going, that phrase almost made sense. It has "words" at least.
Motorola Wants 2.25% of Microsoft's Surface Revenue
So give them a couple hundred bucks and be done with it...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Actually, since Google have acquired Motorola Mobility fully; it is Google vs Microsoft.
MS is the one not leaving Android alone. They are threatening Android OEMs into patent licenses for their ridiculously stupid patent portfolio. Many top OEMs like HTC recently, Barnes and Noble etc. have succumbed and are paying more money to Microsoft than to Google for using Android.
So Google decided to acquire Motorola Mobility and take Microsoft head-on to prevent further damage to the Android ecosystem.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
a) Motorola is already Google's, so calling it "proxy" is a bit strange, but leaving this aside
b) MS went around shaking down Android vendors over patent issues like FAT long names
c) Said shakedown did raise quite a few questions like "What's Google doing to protect their partners?"
Under which rock did you sleep?
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.
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!
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft? Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
Hmm maybe because Microsoft is doing the SAME THING except suing manufacturers of android handsets rather than Google its-self. Then after the lawsuits were done they are charging a license fee to companies selling android. I'm guessing this suit is really intended to either offset that cost or get MS to agree to a cross license agreement.
Here you go, since you seem to have a selective memory: https://www.informationweek.com/windows/microsoft-news/microsoft-gets-android-phone-makers-to-p/231901481
Are you really saying that Google with Moto doesn't have a deep portfolio folder in communications?
I think you have the 2 confused. MS has barely any in the communication area from what I understand. MS is getting Android with other patents (I think 1 is the Fat 32). MS has none in the communication field. Moto has many, Moto cross licenses with many others who do, so taht 2.25% is much less for those other companies.
Since MS has none in this area and I bet Google thinks the patents MS has are software/prior art and not standard essential, Google feels OK. Now MS did get a judge in their backyard who is rulling in their favor (look at same Lawsuit between Moto/Apple in Wisconsin what happened there, and this judge saying he can overide Germany rulings).
You also say about negotiating starting High, MS didn't even negotiate, they got the letter and immediatedly went to ITC/Judge. How is that negotiating in good faith. At least the Judge in Wisconsin saw Apple's ploy for what it was. Wish this judge wasn't so MS biased.
Can you please point out to me MS patents that are critical to Google?
Okay, I'll respond to the questions then (though someone else has already done a better job than I will, it seems).
Why does Google get so low that they need to have proxy patent wars with Microsoft?
How is it "low" to go via the division that owns the patents? The majority of the tech world knows now that Motorola Mobility = Google. It's a whole lot more straightforward than the Microsoft/SCO shenanigans that were going on.
Why can't they leave MS alone or at least sue them themselves?
"Leave them alone"? Seriously? Google are bullying Microsoft are they? By asking them to license technology for which they have the patents? It's not like they're trolling either - they make products that utilise these patents, and many other businesses license the patents too. And again, what is the difference if Google sues directly, other than the hassle that it would take to transfer the patents over to Google. For one thing if they did that, it might make the staff at Motorola Mobility rather skittish and apt to move on because it seems like they are being sucked dry of their assets in preparation for shutting them down, or something along those lines.
which is totally what she said
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.
That's a stupid justification. If you're going to claim something is wrong if the side you dislike does it, then it is equally wrong if the side you like does it. Otherwise you're nothing but a hypocritical fanboi.
Or perhaps, like many here, you believe in the right of self-defense. If you come out to attack me, you cannot complain when I hit you back. If you come at me with a sword, and I have a gun, you also can't complain when I use the gun.
Microsoft and Apple sent a very clear message that they intend to destroy everyone else in the IT industry. Everybody else has the right and, in fact the imperative to fight back. Bullies who are left alone just get stronger.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Nice try redefining abuse. Abuse is not something you dont like happening. Abuse of an FRAND patent is defined in the contract that the holder has with the body. That contract Motorola is following. If they were failing to uphold that contract and actually abusing then the standards body would be chiming in as well.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I think that GP was attempting to explain that Google has filed suit in self defense.
You don't walk around downtown shooting everyone who gets in your way - that's murder. But, if you're assaulted while downtown, by some deranged fool who is trying to kill you - then you have the right to shoot him, in self defense.
It's never "right" to shoot someone, but in some cases, it's not "wrong" either.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Other than recording shit that people were screaming at the top of their lungs while driving by...
What exactly has Google done?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Demanding more than FRAND costs?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
You are absolutely right! And since the most predatory company in business history is Intel I'm sure you will never use any of their products ever again...
According to an engineer I know who worked for Compaq in their heyday. Compaq had developed a superior data bus in the 90's and Intel had requested access to it so they could optimize their chips to utilize it. They signed the NDA and several months later Intel introduced a motherboard with the bus integrated. Copmaq threatened to sue if they didn't pull the board or license the technology. Intel said go ahead and sue...Oh by the way we will no longer sell you CPU's. Compaq licensed the tech to Intel free of charge.
Microsoft did something similar to Citrix and STAC Electronics.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Sue companies for using h.264 patents they hold?
Actually, this is the funniest thing about all the righteous indignation against Google in this whole discussion. This wasn't actually a lawsuit by Motorola against Microsoft. This was a lawsuit by Microsoft against Motorola for Motorola licensing a patent they owned on the standard market rate and not the rate Microsoft wished to pay. In other words Microsoft sued Motorola; not the other way round
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
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.
Sorry to disappoint you here, but MS actually sued Motorola here because they are being whiny and don't want to pay FRAND rates. 2.25% is nothing for being able to use Wifi on your device - how much would you pay for a Surface if it didn't have Wifi on it? Or rather, if you were offered a Surface without Wifi, how much more would you be willing to pay to get Wifi? Significantly more than 2.25% - probably closer to 50% at least, considering a tablet without Wifi is pretty useless - which means that this patent will give returns of more than 15x the licencing cost - which is extremely Fair and Reasonable.
MS could get a better deal (less than 2.25%) if they were willing to do a patent trade with Motorola, where the 2.25% was exchanged for the use of patent(s) of similar value, but MS (and Apple) aren't happy with that because they don't want to share with any of the Android device manufacturers (never mind Google), so they are stuck with the 2.25%.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!