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!

Who implied MS should pay nothing? That's just silly, can't see that anybody said that?

Patent law is damaging to consumers? Try telling all the people dying of AIDS in Africa patent law isn't damaging to consumers...

Patent law is a tearing society apart and killing millions as we speak, the patent system itself is a good one clearly, but patent law has been mutilated and doctored over the years to exploit the biggest dollar for the least work and provide a never ending revenue stream for the inventor, that was NEVER the intention of patented ideas in the first place. It was to facilitate an inventor being rewarded appropriately for their invention.

It's like you have some kind of delusion that patent holders these days are like Da Vinci with his helicoptor blueprints! Patent holders have managed to get the laws twisted in their favour, through throwing the profits around they have acquired from their patents...

It's all linked to copyright law and don't tell me the recent movements on that in the US and EU on extending copyright are good news too for "our inventors", uhhhh I mean big businesses out to exploit every penny they can using every trick in the book from brain washing children to outright corruption and indirectly, happily causing the death of others as a result.

Go dude!

As long as the inventors get their money eh ;)

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.

Hey I went overboard a bit there but hey we'll have to agree to disagree as I've spouted on enough :)

My only answer to your last post is that Motorola are governed by the patent laws that state that a patent should be made available at a fair price, we disagree on what is a fair price. There's too much opinion involved on both sides on if 2.25% is fair so I'll leave it at that.

My apologies for going at you as I was clearly creating hyperbole and taking things way out of context although I stand by my points.

Basically, no offense intended.

Fair enough.  We certainly can agree that there is no logical way to prove or disprove the fairness of a price.  Also, I would think that Microsoft doesn't think in "fairness" tearms, but what will be more profitable in the end: paying, or fighting, so their decision will be entirely based on that.

And might I add, apologies for what was probably an over reaction. You naturally understand the nature of debate on the internet, so it is usually a safe assumption to lean towards the "this guy is probably kind of a jerk" mentality *virtual handshake*

Isn't Sony and every other device manufacturer that allows for H.264 playback guilty of infringing this patent?

unless they paid royalties to license the technology

wow the thread looks so much better without the quote trees....
Just press "delete row" to remove a quote.

Motorola is accused of being greedy for how much it asks from MS. How much does MS ask from Android phones producers?