Well Google can hardly argue that MS has profited substantially off Xbox, so they can hardly expect MS to pony up large amounts of cash on that front. Windows software OTOH is a different matter.

Bad form to go suing someone when they actually licensed your patents though. On what basis did Google claim MS owed them such big sums? Was it solely because MS has made huge profits while Motorola saw only a tiny fraction of those profits in the form of license fees?

I guess FRAND is always going to be open to interpretation. Like you could say the more someone profits from using your patents the more they should pay. That's fair and reasonable from one perspective.

I think Microsoft got off a little too easy on this. Now I am not saying that they should have paid the $4B or anywhere near it but it should have been alot more than the $1.8M.

It isn't about profitability.

Motorola was asking for more than it would cost Microsoft to license the entire Blu-Ray portfolio of patents.  That's hardly fair or reasonable.

Not to mention, it was a percentage of the retail price, not a fixed cost.  If Microsoft sold $200 bundles, they wouldn't get hit as much, but if they sold a $400 bundle it was nearlly $10 per unit.  For one patent.

Microsoft put out an info graphic at one point, where they showed exactly what Motorola was asking for and the absurdity of the argument that it was in legitimate retaliation for Microsoft's licensing.  Microsoft was licensing to Android OEMs 50 patents for 50¢ per unit.  Once again, compared to 2.5% per unit selling price for one patent.  Microsoft's patents are non-standard, non-FRAND patents.  Motorola's patents are. 

50 bullshit software patents, that shouldn't even be patentable. MS should be lucky to get 0.1c per patent per unit. I wish the whole world went the way we've gone with software patents: wiped them completely off our patent books we did. No one can sue anyone for software patent infringement in New Zealand ever again.  If the Motorola patents are also software patents then arse to them as well.

I think UI patents are ridiculous.  You have companies, like Microsoft, patenting icons and fonts.   

However, I think there are valid software patents.  The problem is the waters are completely muddied. 

By their nature, FRAND patents aren't especially valuable. That's why they have to be bundled together with a bunch of other patents and codified into a standard. A substantial award would have emboldened future attempts to use relatively worthless patents as a bludgeon to punish and manipulate not only powerful companies like Microsoft, but new entrants in technology who could never possibly offer a cross-licensing deal or pay an unreasonable toll for all the many patent licenses they would need to get from old guard tech companies.

The court made the right decision here. Preserving the modest value that FRAND patents have and preventing MotoGoogle from undermining the entire standards system.

Google thinking they are the new Microsoft. Lol.

bing gained a further 10% usage market share this year so far on google. There's now only 7.7% in it. I wonder what google must be thinking.

I for one also think software patents needs to be wiped off the earth so these dumb shit companies can stop suing one another and fire some of these lawyers that are useless to society other than to troll people.

Honestly, I'm not a "fan" of any of these companies, whether Google, Microsoft, Sony, Apple... doesn't matter.  I can be a fan of a product, but I have no strange allegiance to any given company.  If years later I like a new product from a new company, I'll switch.  I AM a fan of the consumer.

That being said, Bing can suck my ass.

Huh? Last I checked Google still sitting at something like 66% market share, while Bing is at 17%. It's still impressive Bing has come this far (though at much expense to MS), but that's nearly 50%, not 7.7% :/