Xbox 360 ban: Microsoft rejects Motorola settlement

[kanageddaamen]

fillet said:

kanageddaamen said:

Even though I reject tha rgument that it "ceaces to function" and think your anaolgy is remarkably misguided (I would equate it to removing a trailer hitch from a truck.  The truck can't tow anything any more but you can still use it to get from place to place.) Lets run with it.

You are arguing that this technology is INTEGRAL to the success of the product, that it cannot function without it.  Motorola is asking 2.25% royalties for this absolutely essential function that would it be removed, make the product unusable.  That is not unreasonable at all.  Now I am not certain if this is retail or not, lets assume a nice round average of $350/console.  That is $7.88 for each console.  A pittance with what the video ability means from a profit standpoint for the 360

Lets look at a blu-ray player, which sony charges a $9.50 licesing free for regardless of price.  This is nearly 20% of the cost of a $50 product.  No one argues that is extortion.

Again, MS MUST pay for technology they use, and what Motorola is asking for is not unreasonable.

Actually you have contradicted yourself, 2.25% of each sale for a product that more than likely makes use of hundreds of patents is entirely unreasonable.

The bluray player is completely different, the WHOLE specification is provided to the manufacturer for reference, and they pay only $9.50 for it - that is a bargain.

If Microsoft charged $9.50 for a manufacturer to license the Xbox 360 specification and allow manufacturers to copy it, would you think that is expensive?

That's just 3 points, your logic is completely backwards and I could samurai slice your argument into pixie dust if you would like me to further, I really can't be bothered though :)

 

...One more, you seem to be confused about the idea of a patent being pivotal to the function of a product, that idea does not mean the patent should be worth more, it actually helps the argument of the opposite of what you are trying to argue. A patent that is pivotal to the function of a product does not make that patent more "expensive" or "valuable", the patent has a set value regardless of what product that patent is used in, in this case it simply means that a court is more likely to side AGAINST!!! that company in a court case because they will assume the patent holder is holding the licensee of the patent to ransom because in this particular instance it is pivotal to it's function.

The point is that the Xbox 360 makes use of a patent that is pivotal to it's function, but that patent does not make up a significant function of the said product.

You clearly have no idea of how these things work though, no disrespect but read up on the very basics of patents law and you'll see the errors of your ways and not regard my post as a patronising piece of rubbish. :)

Seeing as the ACTUAL courts ruled otherwise, your implication of lack of knowledge may be misplaced.  But I will chock that up to an obtuse opinion that you know better than a judge, and hence are either fairly unintelligent, or and ego-maniac and not worth debating with.