Naturally, which sony is part of, and since they are the only ones who are a direct player in the Video game market (This is VIDEO GAME chartz, is it not?) I though it fitting enough to just use them.

I must have old data then.  Apologies, 10% of the price then.

Seeing as the ACTUAL courts ruled otherwise, your implication of lack of knowledge may be misplaced.  But I will chock that up to an obtuse opinion that you know better than a judge, and hence are either fairly unintelligent, or and ego-maniac and not worth debating with.

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.

I would also add, that I am not for a ban on the import, just that MS pays for technologies it uses

Who am I?  Someone who develops technologies and worry about fair compensation for inventors and creative people, and those who purchase their works.

The problem with your argument is that Motorola's patent is a standards patent, and it's one patent that is required for decoding H.264 encoded video.  For the $9.50 that the Blu-Ray Association charges (not Sony) you're licensed for all the respective patents associated with the technology, including H.264 video decoding as it is a required standard for playing Blu-Ray discs.  Based on your argument, you're saying 1 patent for $4.50 to $9.00 is fair, but that's 47% - 95% of the cost of the entire patent suite necessary to license Blu-Ray.  There is no way those are fair and reasonable terms.

Not to mention, how is 2.25% on a 250GB Xbox 360 justifiable when the same technology is available on a 4GB Xbox 360?  Why shouldn't it be a single price?  Why should a patent holder benefit from the increased price of value added accessories that have nothing to do with the patent?  That isn't fair or reasonable.

Microsoft's not trying to get out of licensing the technology it's using, they've been negotiating the terms for sometime.  The problem has been that Motorola has agreed to license its standards patents (H.264 and Wi-Fi) under FRAND rules, and it is failing to do so.  No judge has said Microsoft's argument isn't valid, just that Microsoft and Motorola are improperly using the courts.  In fact the ITC has ruled that both Microsoft and Motorola are in violation of each other's patents and that both companies products that are in violation should be banned from import.  The difference at this point is that the ITC in Motorola's argument against Microsoft has yet to release its full recommendation.  They have, however issued the full recommendation to ban the import of Motorola mobile devices.

What have I said that implies me being an ego maniac?  That I reject a premise and the attached anaolgy?

Let us throw all debate out the window then, else we be labled hypocrites.

No, the actual courts did not rule otherwise.  The ITC judge ruled that both Microsoft and Motorola were infringed on the other's patents.  Motorola infringed on Microsoft's ActiveSync patent (a non-standards patent) and therefore ruled that Motorola mobile devices should be banned.  As well, the ITC ruled that Microsoft's Windows products and Xbox 360 infringed on Motorola's H.264 and Wi-Fi patent, both standards patents.  The preliminary finding by the ITC judge is that the Xbox 360 should be banned from import, however the full ITC body has yet to make its decision on the matter.  The ban on Motorola products is in effect, as President Obama has issued the order.

The ITC could determine that Motorola failed to license its standards patents under fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory terms.  If they do that, then Motorola will have to go back to the table with more reasonable licensing terms.

Can we stop with the wall of text quotes. If people can't follow a conversation by actually reading the thread, then maybe they shouldn't be replying.

I never made any claims over the ban, just that the courts ruled that MS infringed on the patents, which they have.  Again, I do not care for the ban, simply the enforcement of payment for copyright material.  I personally don't find the offer unreasonable from Motorola, but MS must have felt otherwise and that they had more to gain financially from rejecting it than paying it.  We will see how the courts decide finally.

The whole crux of my argument is against the mentality in the thread that MS should pay NOTHING (not saying you said that, but there is certain implication to that fact) and that patent law is somehow damaging to consumers, which I reject.