| AbbathTheGrim said: This is looking awesome. |
indeed. Hopefully the ps3 and wii u are next. O I can only dream this causes a vicious cycle where all electronic devices ever are banned from all countries that have copyright laws.
| superchunk said: I think this is 100% the fault of MS and Apple and their direct attacks on Google/Android instead of continued innovation. As soon as Moto wins this case fully, it will extend it (with new precedence) on Apple. Kinda funny when you consider the royalties MS rapes from Android OEMs for similar base and common tech. |
This. MS started this patent trolling war, and now that it risks getting horribly burnt, it cries mama.
enrageorange said:
indeed. Hopefully the ps3 and wii u are next. O I can only dream this causes a vicious cycle where all electronic devices ever are banned from all countries that have copyright laws. |
QFT 100%. I hope the outcome will be so horrible USA will sorely regret having approved IP laws so obtusely greedy and so heavily biased, with patents managed by a Patent Office so sloppy.
Is this article correct I thought 'ActiveSync' was MS patented? Isn't the Motorola patented technology the H.264 video codec?
Curious at to how each patented technology's worth is estimated - is it estimated that Microsoft devices utilise the video codec more than Motorola smart phones are connected to Exchange servers?
| Fumanchu said: Is this article correct I thought 'ActiveSync' was MS patented? Isn't the Motorola patented technology the H.264 video codec? Curious at to how each patented technology's worth is estimated - is it estimated that Microsoft devices utilise the video codec more than Motorola smart phones are connected to Exchange servers? |
No, this article is factually incorrect.
Adinnieken said:
No, this article is factually incorrect. |
Cheers for clearing that up.
By the way, does anyone know what video content MS offers that uses the H.264 codec - at first I thought it must have been their Zune video streaming but apparently that uses 'smooth streaming'(?). Surely this isn't in-game cut-scenes or free movie/game trailers?
| FattyDingDong said: The Xbox firm is feverishly trying to escape one of the most disastrous legal rulings imposed on the company in its thirty-seven-year history, after the International Trade Commission (ITC) was advised in May to ban the import and sale of Xbox 360 systems in the United States unless the dispute was settled. At the heart of the legal war is a patented Motorola Mobility technology - called ActiveSync - that Microsoft uses across a number of devices and technologies such as Windows 7, Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player and Xbox 360 S. In its settlement offer, Motorola Mobility has asked for a royalty of 2.25 per cent on each Xbox sale, and $0.50 per copy of Windows, that use its patented technology. Microsoft has rejected this offer, though the company is running out of room for negotiation. In April, Judge David Shaw said Microsoft should be handed a cease-and-desist order on sales of Xbox 360 Slim consoles across America unless the dispute was settled. He claimed that Microsoft should also be banned from importing the console from China, and pay Motorola Mobility 7 per cent of the value of any unsold systems remaining in US stores. The ITC commissioners can either allow the initial determination stand, or amend certain terms, or send it back for a rewrite. If Shaw's recommendation is enacted, President Barack Obama will have 60 days to review the decision. Apple and Activision are two of several US firms opposing the ITC's recommendation to ban Xbox 360 in the US on the basis of a complex patent dispute. The legal war between Microsoft and Motorola Mobility - fought in courtrooms in Germany, the US and an ITC panel - has proven to be extraordinarily expensive for both parties. A Seattle judge recently claimed that attorney fees already spent "could finance a small country". Microsoft alleges that Motorola Mobility breached contract by demanding "unreasonable licensing fees" for use of the patents. It argued that it would have needed to spend some $4 billion each year to cover licensing costs. Motorola's counter-claim is that Microsoft gave up its right to negotiate on the royalty rate as soon as it began lawsuit action. In April, a court in Germany declared Microsoft consoles should be banned across the country. This verdict will not come into effect until the US lawsuit is concluded. Microsoft, which has defied all major outcomes of the case, has warned the ITC that banning Xbox 360 across the US would not serve the public interest, because it would leave the market with a choice between PlayStation 3 and Nintendo's Wii. Shaw rejected the argument, claiming that enforcing intellectual property rights takes precedence. Most Xbox 360s in the US are imported from China - a business practice considered vital in driving down production costs. Motorola Mobility was recently acquired by Google. source: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/354709/xbox-360-ban-microsoft-rejects-motorola-settlement/ |
Sadly this article is factually incorrect.
The opinion (not ruling) was with the ITC, the opinion is taken into consideration, it is not necessarily the action that the ITC will recommend, and even then the President can decide against it.
ActiveSync is a Microsoft technology, it's been a Microsoft Technology since 1996. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveSync) It was Motorola Mobility who was found to be infringing on Microsoft's ActiveSync patent, for which Motorola wanted to license it at 33¢ per license.
What Microsoft has been found to have infringed upon is Motorola's H.264 patents, which the article does correctly state they want 2.25% of every console sale, and 50¢ per Windows license. But the "complex" argument against Motorola's terms are the fact that it agreed to license the standard necessary patents it holds under fair reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms (FRAND) and it has failed to do so.
For example, a Windows license costs 50¢, but a 250GB Xbox 360 w/ Kinect costs $9.00. How is that fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory? The problem it creates is that instead of allowing a company (in this case Microsoft) to build value packages, it in the case of Windows 8 results in the elimination of Blu-Ray playback in Windows Media Player (you have to buy a separate software product for that) and Windows Media Center is also an additional buy. For the Xbox 360, it de-incentivises bundles that include the HDD or Kinect because the cheaper that Microsoft can make the console, the less it has to pay. That $200 4GB Xbox 360 only costs $4.50 vs the $9.00 it would pay for the 250GB bundle with Kinect. So if Microsoft is looking to lesson the impact of the licensing, it means consumers may get the shaft in the long-run with increased bundle costs or the elimination of the bundles altogether.
Microsoft clearly has room to negotiate, as Motorola would also face an ITC ban due to its infringing of Microsoft's patent, as so ordered by a judge.
The problem in this situation is that Motorola has an obligation to license its H.264 patents under FRAND terms. It isn't doing so, and it's obvious that it isn't. Motorola's offer was an offer that they knew Microsoft would refuse. If companies cannot license standards patents under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms, then what will eventually happen is the value of standardization breaks down sending us back to the old-west of the 80's and 90's in computing where everyone, including Microsoft created their own competing technology and media and content couldn't be used across platforms. What Motorola is doing is not in the best interest of consumers, and people shouldn't be sitting there thinking it is. The whole idea of a standards patent being licensed under FRAND terms is that by virtue of a standard, anyone and everyone that wants to use that standard must license a patent or patents. By adoption of the standard by industries and manufacturers, you are guaranteed income. Motorola with its terms are abusing that.
| Fumanchu said: Cheers for clearing that up. By the way, does anyone know what video content MS offers that uses the H.264 codec - at first I thought it must have been their Zune video streaming but apparently that uses 'smooth streaming'(?). Surely this isn't in-game cut-scenes or free movie/game trailers? |
The Motion Picture Group adopted H.264 as the encoding method for all HD content. So, any HD movies that you view via Xbox LIVE will be encoded with H.264 for the video. Any video delivered over HTML5 will also be encoded with H.264.
Most current applications on the Xbox 360 are developed using Microsoft Silverlight. Silverlight is capable of streaming both WMV V1 (a competitor of H.264) and H.264 encoded content.
For a company that in the past had been very much into their own proprietary technology, Microsoft has been very gung-ho about adopting H.264 in its products up until this legal battle.
Alby_da_Wolf said:
QFT 100%. I hope the outcome will be so horrible USA will sorely regret having approved IP laws so obtusely greedy and so heavily biased, with patents managed by a Patent Office so sloppy. |
There was no issue with Motorola and Microsoft regarding any Motorola patents prior to Google buying Motorola.
Only after Google bought Motorola did things go sour.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
