| binary solo said: Well Google can hardly argue that MS has profited substantially off Xbox, so they can hardly expect MS to pony up large amounts of cash on that front. Windows software OTOH is a different matter. Bad form to go suing someone when they actually licensed your patents though. On what basis did Google claim MS owed them such big sums? Was it solely because MS has made huge profits while Motorola saw only a tiny fraction of those profits in the form of license fees? I guess FRAND is always going to be open to interpretation. Like you could say the more someone profits from using your patents the more they should pay. That's fair and reasonable from one perspective. |
It isn't about profitability.
Motorola was asking for more than it would cost Microsoft to license the entire Blu-Ray portfolio of patents. That's hardly fair or reasonable.
Not to mention, it was a percentage of the retail price, not a fixed cost. If Microsoft sold $200 bundles, they wouldn't get hit as much, but if they sold a $400 bundle it was nearlly $10 per unit. For one patent.
Microsoft put out an info graphic at one point, where they showed exactly what Motorola was asking for and the absurdity of the argument that it was in legitimate retaliation for Microsoft's licensing. Microsoft was licensing to Android OEMs 50 patents for 50¢ per unit. Once again, compared to 2.5% per unit selling price for one patent. Microsoft's patents are non-standard, non-FRAND patents. Motorola's patents are.
