binary solo said:
Adinnieken said:
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.
|
50 bullshit software patents, that shouldn't even be patentable. MS should be lucky to get 0.1c per patent per unit. I wish the whole world went the way we've gone with software patents: wiped them completely off our patent books we did. No one can sue anyone for software patent infringement in New Zealand ever again. If the Motorola patents are also software patents then arse to them as well.
|
I think UI patents are ridiculous. You have companies, like Microsoft, patenting icons and fonts.
However, I think there are valid software patents. The problem is the waters are completely muddied.
