Adinnieken said:
Honestly, Motorola never should have had traction with their suit. Leave it to the Germans though. I mean, had it not been for the Germans we wouldn't have gone through World War I or World War II, we wouldn't have had the debacle that is the European Union, or Easter, or we wouldn't have farfegnugen. |
Please say that was a joke?
| Adinnieken said: I am deeply saddened by the intelligence level of the commenting here. That anyone would have need to question the tone or tenor of my statements is just disappointing. I'm not going to bother answering the question because I made it abundantly clear. |
Well for me, it was you saying "honestly" lol.
But I see now.
Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles.
Huh thats now two people who have i dont know as their names.
The other is wonktonodi which is i do not know backwards.
| theprof00 said: Huh thats now two people who have i dont know as their names. The other is wonktonodi which is i do not know backwards. |
The difference is I'm not dyslexic.
Lol anyway back on topic, this was indeed predicted by several members like kowen, seece.
Though not dropping the codec battle could mean its more credible.
| theprof00 said: Lol anyway back on topic, this was indeed predicted by several members like kowen, seece. Though not dropping the codec battle could mean its more credible. |
I think Microsoft's argument holds up with both technologies. I think any attempt by Moto to make the H.264 patents a profit center is unacceptable. Moto is guaranteed licensing based on the simple fact that H.264 is a standard. If a standards patent holder is allowed to unfairly license a patent than it puts the ultimate control of the winners and losers in the hands of the people who create the standard. The problem is, it's a standard that an industry as a whole has agreed to. If anyone has read anything about why the MPEG went with H.264 over Microsoft's V1, it was because the former was an open format (in that multiple companies were involved), where as Microsoft's was a proprietary format. The fear was that it would give one company too much control or power and Microsoft would abuse it. Now, we have Moto doing the same exact thing that MPEG was concerned Microsoft might do.
I think Moto needs to be bitch-slapped.
Adinnieken said:
I think Microsoft's argument holds up with both technologies. I think any attempt by Moto to make the H.264 patents a profit center is unacceptable. Moto is guaranteed licensing based on the simple fact that H.264 is a standard. If a standards patent holder is allowed to unfairly license a patent than it puts the ultimate control of the winners and losers in the hands of the people who create the standard. The problem is, it's a standard that an industry as a whole has agreed to. If anyone has read anything about why the MPEG went with H.264 over Microsoft's V1, it was because the former was an open format (in that multiple companies were involved), where as Microsoft's was a proprietary format. The fear was that it would give one company too much control or power and Microsoft would abuse it. Now, we have Moto doing the same exact thing that MPEG was concerned Microsoft might do. |
Yes but is it guaranteed free?
From what I've gathered, and maybe I'm wrong, but MS included the codec without so much as contacting moto about it. Is that a correct assessment?
| theprof00 said: Yes but is it guaranteed free? From what I've gathered, and maybe I'm wrong, but MS included the codec without so much as contacting moto about it. Is that a correct assessment? |
I never said free, but from my understanding no. Microsoft and Motorola were in discussions, but Moto's licensing was unreasonable. Moto agreed to license it's patents under FRAND terms, however Microsoft did not feel they were. Basically Motorola was asking for 2.25% of the selling price of an Xbox 360. So, if Microsoft had a $400 bundle, they'd get $9. If they had a $200 bundle, they'd get $ 4.50. The fact that Moto was basing it on price was neither fair nor reasonable, especially when you consider the functionality doesn't change from bundle to bundle.
Microsoft is arguing, I guess, that they've already licensed it through the MPEG, therefore they don't need to pay anything. That certainly makes sense, considering the whole reason why Microsoft Supported H.264 in HTML 5 was because companies like Microsoft, Apple, etc were already licensed for the technology so they could include it in their products and make it work.
Why support standardization when there's no benefit to supporting it? It just feels like Moto is trying to grift Microsoft.
Hmm i just reread something i had forgotten whoch was that Microsoft has already sued and banned 12 motorola phones from the us for activesync infringement.
Why didnt Microsoft consider their own infringements prior to legal action?
Currently more than 50 companies pay Motorola's 2% fee for the codec.
Imo it just seems like Microsoft was bullying Motorola and are now arguing that they did nothing wrong.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
