Motorola turns down Microsoft's royalty offer, decides to keep $100 million bond
The patents involved with this particular case are the H.264 video standard and the 802.11 wireless standard and Motorola, a wholly owned subsidiary of Google, was seeking $4 billion a year for the rights to use them. The technology is used for Windows Phone and for the Xbox and Redmond based Microsoft recently sent a letter to Motorola suggesting that it make a $6.8 million payment to cover all past use of the patents. Motorola has refused the payment and is continuing to hold on to a court-ordered $100 million bond obtained by Microsoft even though the actual damages that were awarded by the judge were well under this amount.
In addition to paying $6.8 million to catch up with past use of the patented technology, Microsoft said it would also pay Motorola future royalty rates based on future rate-setting court decisions. Whether you are an attorney or just play one on television, you can check out the legal documents below, including a copy of the letter from Microsoft to Motorola.
source: Scribd via electronista
2. thecorrescode (Posts: 26; Member since: 28 Mar 2013)
Alan F is starting to become Florian Mueller...
4. MartyK (Posts: 700; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
He has always been Florian Mueller little brother...this shouldn't surprise anyone who has ever read any article of his...smh
7. Sniggly (Posts: 6812; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Global sales of the Xbox line alone since its inception have been 100 million worldwide. Not including Windows Phone sales, Microsoft basically just offered to pay 7 cents per device it sells using Motorola's technology.
This is the same company that's more than happy to collect 15 DOLLARS per device, or 21,000% of what it offered Motorola, from HTC and Samsung each for the use of ITS patents.
In other words, Microsoft can go screw itself.
8. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3333; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I thought this fell under the notion of being a FRAND patent? I think that was a little too generous of an offer to Motorola.
10. Sniggly (Posts: 6812; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Because you misunderstand what FRAND is supposed to be. You think that FRAND patents should be licensed for free.
14. jacko1977 (Posts: 388; Member since: 11 Feb 2012)
just like apple and the ruling of 1billion overpay for FRAND patent's
9. Meleagru (Posts: 84; Member since: 03 Dec 2012)
Is Motorola appealing the ruling? Because otherwise what they are doing seems borderline illegal.
13. techguyone (Posts: 96; Member since: 18 May 2013)
What Sniggly said was right - if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander, regardless of MxyTroll's views.