Here we go again: Microsoft versus Motorola FRAND patent trial starts
There is a big difference between what each company feels the patents are worth. Motorola wants $4 billion a year for the patents in its portfolio while Microsoft values them at $1.25 million or less. Additionally, Microsoft claims that Google already offered them a worldwide license for the standard rate agreement when the essential patent rules were being formulated. If the court finds that Google did make this offer to Microsoft, Motorola will receive a lot less money than it was hoping to get.
To make sure that this trial doesn't turn into the media circus that the Apple-Samsung patent trial turned into, both sides requested that the courtroom be cleared when financial matters are being discussed, a request denied by the judge. While the judge did say that the public won't be allowed to see evidence related to patent negotiations or financial data, he did note that any testimony will be made in open court meaning that "if a witness discloses pertinent terms, rates or payments, such information will necessarily be made public."
9. rsxl5 (Posts: 65; Member since: 05 Sep 2012)
The question here could be:
- if 2.25% is 4 billion what is a margin M$/Apple and other companies make on their devices :)
So, 4 billion doesn't look like a pie for me but just a smaller piece of a pie :)
12. Aeires (unregistered)
2.25% on a $500 phone is $11.25 if my math is right. Sounds close to what MS is taking from Android OEMs. It would depend on what the patents are for and how many are involved, but on the surface it doesn't seem too unreasonable when put into perspective.
18. -box- (Posts: 3982; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
I think moto might have a problem with its case. It's arguing that it should receive royalties on each product (XBox, desktop/laptop PC, phone), even if the software was installed by a non-Microsoft OEM. That said, if Microsoft argues that it just makes the software and didn't willfully infringe on a patent on said device because the OEM opted to install it. Thus an Xbox would be potentially infringing, but an Acer laptop wouldn't. At least, that's how I understand it. Not only that, then, but Microsoft doesn't set the price of the end product, the OEMs do, so it should not be held accountable for their prices. Moto would have to take every infringing OEM to court to recoup that cost, if granted. Pursuing the operating software instead would be a more accurate calculation of any Microsoft infringement.
2. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
Get them, Google!!! Microsoft is already stealing money, you can see that here:
bit [dot] ly/RYzOPP
so Microsoft deserves to pay a lot!
3. schinnak (Posts: 84; Member since: 26 Oct 2011)
This is more reasonable than Apple's feud with Samsung & other companies. Both MS and Google are atleast trying to settle down the issue in a matured manner and by avoiding all the circus show.
4. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
wow Motorola is being greedy instead of innovating... the RAZR is so last year.
5. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
so if you punch me and I want to punch you too as a payback am I "greedy" too?
so can I punch you without a payback from you? :)
6. bluexperia (Posts: 41; Member since: 29 Sep 2012)
both comment were right but it seems like new product of microsoft see,s to be a little bit pricey compared to to the other device in the field they are competing with(surface etc). just an opinion.
19. -box- (Posts: 3982; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
I would disagree. The XBox 360 with Kinect is about the same price as a PS3, the Surface is about the same price as an ATIV RT or VivoTab. I think the only RT tablet I've seen cheaper than the Surface is Acer's. Also, their OS is $30-40 online or $60-70 for the disc, whereas apple charges $20-40 for each update to its OS (technically a service pack, which Microsoft distributes for free) and doesn't even offer its OS as a standalone product for a single end-user, you have to buy the computer to get it, and with apple's markups being several hundred dollars with equivalent or same hardware as a PC, we could then presume that the OS is part of that cost. Makes Microsoft a real bargain, in that light.
7. MeoCao (unregistered)
Nah, this is just the answer to patent trolling from MS.
Google's stance is clear: No surrendering to the trolls.
8. tedkord (Posts: 7945; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
That still puts it 3 years ahead of the iPhone...
13. Aeires (unregistered)
Droid Razr, release date 11 Nov 2011. Wow, nailed it.
14. shuaibhere (Posts: 1962; Member since: 07 Jul 2012)
hey it is showing that g00gl(00=oo) is banned word......
it doesnt even allow me to even post G00gle.....
what the heck is happening????
15. Sniggly (Posts: 7296; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Well, at least we don't have Mxy in here fallaciously claiming that FRAND means Motorola can't ask for any royalty at all.
1.25 million sounds ludicrously low. Wifi is a huge part of Windows device functionality. It'll be interesting to see how this one turns out.
17. snowgator (Posts: 3448; Member since: 19 Jan 2011)
Somewhere in the dead set middle?
One of those situations where I can't believe that neither side could compromise. Microsoft is admitting it should pay, Motorola owns the patent, and they STILL have to go to court?
Send both sets of executives into a room without lawyers, and 20 minutes later they would have a good settlement. Heck, cross license the patents with the ones MS gets cash from Android devices and call it a day.
21. Fallout09 (Posts: 421; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
I think that might be part of the problem.... MS probably will not cross license patents they own seeing that it is the only boat keeping that a float.
16. lyndon420 (Posts: 3147; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
10 - 15 bucks per device ms....cough it up.