Xbox 360 ban: Microsoft rejects Motorola settlement

[kanageddaamen]

fillet said:
Well you were implying I was ego-something or other.

Regardless, my points were all valid and directed at your comments which I felt obviously invalid, hence my post.

A few members have already stated the same as what I was getting at, with the analogy of a screw in a machine.

The "invention" is the important part, Motorola's patent is a very minor invention which makes up the Xbox 360, like a screw in a mechanical contraption. You have used the downright ridiculous comparison of the bluray consortium licensing it's portfolio of hundreds of patents for $9.50 making out that is somehow a similar situation.

I'll say it again, the bluray patent portfolio encompasses all technologies, needed for playback of a bluray disk, from BD-Java, BD+, Video (h264, MPEG-2, VC1), audio, (Dolby AC3, DTS, DTSMA, Dolby TrueHD, DTS Express), AACS encryption, BD disk specification and god knows what else.

So you're saying it's fair that Microsoft pay $7 odd versus a $9.50 charge to the bluray consortium for all technology it takes to produce a bluray player, obviously we aren't talking about hardware components and SOC designs that might be licensed used, or whatever.

Not only is that stark raving bonkers, you've also been shown to be wrong about the charge anyway which is closer to $4 for bluray consortium patent portfolio license per device.

...You say you're just after a fair deal for inventors but in all honesty you sound like an RIAA or MPAA representative or a paid off member of congress!

If you read my whole post you would have seen that it's a counter argument to the idea that the piece from motorola was as significant as the chassis to a car.  I said I rejected that premise, but was just extending to its logical conclusion so that if you THOUGHT the premise was true, then here is where it leads with an example with something that IS important as a chassis to a car.

If you think that the motorola piece is like a screw (though I more would think of it as a cd player in a car) then you can't argue that Motorola is extorting the price from MS because the piece is not integral to the whole's operation.  In which case, MS could drop the piece and no longer have that feature.  The only reason MS was able to BILL the 360 as a media hub (claiming competative advantage) is because of conglomeration of features, one of which is made possible via the Motorolla piece.  If they don't want to pay, then remove the piece, and reduce the feature set and competative advantage.  

If they view the piece as necessary for their strategy, they have to pay.