Samsung Paid Microsoft $1 Billion Last Year In Android Royalties

An anonymous reader writes: According to recently unsealed court filings, Samsung Electronics paid Microsoft more than $1 billion in annual fees to use patented Microsoft technology in Samsung's Android phones. The patent treasures include methods for displaying multiple windows in a Web browser. "Samsung originally signed its patent deal with Microsoft in 2011, ahead of its impressive dominance of Android shipments, but late last year Samsung decided it was tired of paying on time, or paying interest when a late payment was finally made. Microsoft has taken Samsung to court over the issues, and the Korean company insists it wants to walk away from the original deal because of Microsoft’s purchase of Nokia’s phone business. Samsung claims the acquisition invalidates the cross-licensing IP agreement, but Microsoft doesnt agree and wants the company to pay $6.9 million in unpaid interest from last year."

Comments

Nevertheless, Microsoft is doomed

[jkrise]

What the large monies paid by Samsung indicates is the enormous mindshare and marketshare for Android. Windows on the mobile and tablet space is non-existent. For some years Microsoft might make money out of Android sales using these patent threats, being the litigious thugs they are.

But in a few years - say three at the max, Android makers will realise that these patents are really worthless, and back away from their agreements.

In any case a few billions in patent royalty is pocket change for Microsoft, and their bloated manpower will plunge them into the death spiral since Windows is becoming fast irrelevant in the only space it serves - viz, the desktop.

Re:Nevertheless, Microsoft is doomed

[__aaltlg1547]

My company's position (it's not that large, only about a $2.5B company) is that patents are for defensive purposes. They don't seem to really think they could use them to keep the competition from copying one of our products. They're much more concerned that we can't develop products without infringing on somebody's patent and being vulnerable to being sued and they want to have a big collection of patents they could use to negotiate better licensing terms or stave off a suit.

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank

[tepples]

"On a computer" is a magical phrase. If no one has patented it yet, it's fair game - everything on a computer is novel to the patent office.

Not anymore since the US Supreme Court's verdict in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.

MS losing money?

[fermion]

I have often suspected that part of the reason that MS continues to make a phone is so it won't be accused of being a patent troll. If it is making phones, then it is not just trying to monetized a portfolio by attacking others who are doing the real work. I suspect the Surface is the same issue, and the the two might actually be breaking even given royalties.

I also think that this has nothing to do with MS or the royalties to MS. I think it has to do with Apple. Samsung, for some reason, gave MS a sweetheart deal on the thinnest of evidence. Samsung did not go to court, wait for google, but just paid MS a reletively large amount of cash for every handset sold. This tells me that there was so backroom negotiations going on, possible lawfully questionable negotiations. This, probably, is negatively effecting the Apple situation because if they were so eager to give MS money, why are they fighting Apple on claims that are at least as good? Which means that whatever possible underhanded deal Samsung made with MS is no longer paying off.