| 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 Again, MS MUST pay for technology they use, and what Motorola is asking for is not unreasonable. |
You would equate it to that, but a truck getting from place to place is it's primary function. Currently, the primary function of people using an Xbox 360 is to watch videos.
Now, lets break down the difference between something "integral to success" and something critical to function. It is the latter. In fact, in my previous post I called it "a non-major, but critical patent." This patent is like a screw. Screws holding something together are critical, without them, things fall apart - but they aren't 'integral to the success"of anything. peices can be welded or bolted or clipped, etc. Their function is critical, but the component itself is not what makes the product a success.
Microsoft isn't using "motorola video player" free of charge, they're just using a patent related to video playback.
Now, let's assume for a minute that "sony" charging these made up numbers was true - that would be different. A Blu-ray is an entire product on it's own. For a company to charge $10 to enable someone else to mass produce a product which can be sold for up to $300, free of research and development, would be entirely reasonable. This is NOT the same. This would be like a random company charging an additional $9.50 per unit for the specific laser configuration used in each blu-ray machine. it's a small critical function, but a much simpler patent in no way worth increasing the cost of every blu ray player ever made by $10.
Again, MS must pay, but nowhere near this amount. It is FAR from a "pittance" - every nult, bolt, wire, chip, etc is critical to a unit functioning - that doesn't mean it can charge an unreasonable fee for being used.
