To be honest i think moto is asking for a bit much, but i also think this is mainly moto just reacting. Like, you want to sue the guys you havent even been paying for 5 years? All of the day, bro.

Also i agree with karmageddon.
The. 264 is not essential to microsofts product. Microsofts product is a gaming station that evolved into a media hub through the use of something they simply decided not to pay for. They gained unfair competitive advantage through having a lower cost product with more features.
Am i right or wrong here?
I do think 2.25% is too much, but ms is clearly in the wrong here. They didnt NEED it to be successful, they needed it to be MORE successful than their competitors, and with studies showing more and more people using 360 for streaming alone, this is a big deal.

Another thread that helped me clarify a few more trolls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfslY_AvhLw

OT: Like with the Apple/Moto case, common sense will prevail here as well. I didn't know, though, that there currently IS ban on Motorola smartphones due to the ActiveSync patents. After just a quick couple of searches and reads, this is simply a huge mess between Apple and Motorola/Google along with Microsoft and Motorola/Google. The claims many are making here against MS are just as valid against Motorola/Google (even more so as a judgment has already passed against M/G). But the stand M/G is making just doesn't make any sense. Soooo many Android device makers have settled amicably with MS on these patents yet they chose to fight and lost, even though it mostly affects discontinued devices and thus would not significantly affect M/G sales/profits. Their demands of MS now seem even more unreasonable.

And, considering the future of h.264, if M/G were to win this without severely lowering their demands, it could set a dangerous precedent for us as consumers. The settlements that Android device manufacturers have agreed hasn't affected consumers in any noticeable way. This? Unlikely to be as transparent. If you're gonna pick a side as a consumer, pick one FOR consumers.

Those are not reports, it's speculation.  Even Mary-Jo Foley finds the suggestion of $10-$15 ridiculous, considering that we know how much Microsoft was awarded in the HTC case, and we know how many mobiles HTC sold.  Which puts the licenses at $5.00.

What company, in their right mind, would continue to use Android if Microsoft was licensing their patents to you at $10-$15, and then you have Apple also suing licensing their patents to you at whatever price they're charging, when you could easily license Windows Phone 7 for $15.

There would be no financial benefit to licensing Android if it exceeds the cost of licensing Windows Phone 7.  Not to mention, any lawyer worth their weight in lawyering, would have used the HTC ruling as precedent for damages against Samsung.  So either Samsung has lawyers that don't know what they're doing, or all the "reports" you mention (really it's one rumor repeated multiple times) aren't factual.

I'm sorry, but when did logic get thrown out in analysis of a situation and hyperbole replaced it as rational and sound reasoning?  Think. 

I think the worst case scenario is MS will just pay the fees. Perhaps even pay less than asked.

But a 360 ban? Unlikely.

@darth
Could you help understand what it is youre talking about?
You said many manufacturers settled with ms. Sure, ms wasnt intruding on their patents. Its intruding on motos, right?
So ms sued or gets payments from other device manufacturers. That doesnt mean moto is unreasonable. It means they they didnt like what ms was pulling.
I know for a fact that lots of companies use each others patents without paying and those companies use the others. Its just an unspoken agreement. But then ms has a phone and wants to reel in its competitors with their royalties.
Moto says fine have it your way, and countersues. The judge already agreed that both were trying to gain competitive advantage, so ms is at least guilty of doing that with the phone royalties, which in turn makes it reasonable for moto to countersue, imo.

@adinniken
You ask, who in their right mind would continue licensing android?
Any company that wants their phone to be popular? Phone prices dont matter.
who wants to use windows 7 phone when it has like 4% market share?
Not seeing how you can value a price over a desirable good.
thats like saying who would buy an ipod when you can buy a creative zen for half.

At least thats what i think youre saying. Correct me if im wrong.

Regarding wmv v1, the competitor to h.264,
Why doesnt ms just switch to that then, unless it would cost them more money. They seem to be claiming that h.264 is necessary and that they cannot be banned, so then just change to wmv1. Right?
I don't get it.really just seems like they wan to do w/e the fuck they want.

Well actually the rumours suggested $10-15 as the sum asked by MS, but except that HTC case you cited, no other settling has been disclosed, so they could be too around $5. I think too $15 could be excessive, considering the only final deal we know, but as when you bargain you start asking for more than the minimum you want and offering less than the maximum you're ready to give, we at least know MS must have initiallly asked for an unknown amount more than $5 per phone.

The point I was making is not why would anyone pay the licensing fees, but why would anyone pay more in licensing fees than a license for another OS?  It doesn't make sense.  The only reason why Samsung is still using Android is because the fees aren't as expensive as the reports and so it doesn't make Android more expensive than Windows Phone 7. 

No, it isn't the same.  The wholesale price affects the amount of profit.  The more licensing cuts into it, the more likely a company will decide to go with the least expensive option to maximize profits.  As long as you're providing the same or similar functionality, consumers aren't going to care.

The reason why the iPod succeeded over the Creative Zen was a very simple reason, the iPod offered a store you could purchase music with.  With the Zen, there was no service that Creative offered.  You could either buy CD's and burn them, or you could use any number of the services that were being sued by the RIAA.