Washington court tells Motorola to expect millions, not billions
Both sides issued statements afterward with Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Howard saying, "This decision is good for consumers because it ensures patented technology committed to standards remains affordable for everyone." Motorola simply said that it "...has licensed its substantial patent portfolio on reasonable rates consistent with those set by others in the industry.”
An Administrative Law Judge last month ruled that Microsoft did not infringe on Motorola's patents covering H.264 and 802.11. This is a separate issue than determining what Microsoft should pay to license the same exact patents. The entire 6 member ITC commission is reviewing that decision.
1. xperiaDROID (banned) (Posts: 5629; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Microsoft should pay Motorola $1.8 million a year to license some of the latter's standards-essential patents? $1.8 million a year?!
DAMN JUDGE YOU SCARY! x(
9. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
yes, Microsoft gets 1 bill from Android manufacturers.....so kill that rotten Microsoft who has bribed probably every county in the world:
eg. in Slovakia you MUST have Windows to pay taxes!!! = huge corruption!!!!!
bit [dot] ly/RYzOPP
14. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
bribes all the gov and
"Microsoft bribes Best Buy staff to slam Mac and Linux."
15. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
We don't get bribed. And frankly, at a lot of stores where we sell Macs you'll find Apple douchebags working the PC department.
Now, our computer guys do hate selling Chromebooks, but that's because we make jackall on them unless we sell the extras.
22. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
DId you read the title of the article? $1.8 million/year is not scary for Microsoft.
2. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Well, at least Motorola's going to get something.
Notably, it seems they'll let the decision stand without challenging it.
In the meantime, Microsoft can still go f**k itself for trying to sue Google for including Google products and services in Android, Google's operating system.
Oh, and I'm sure that the comments section will M.ake for an eX.citing storY.
5. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 8402; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
So it's ok for Motorola to sue and abuse FRAND patents but it's not ok for Microsoft to do the same, who which btw do hold several important patents that Android uses.
Oh, and you're not being clever by subtly calling me out with your little spelling.
7. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
They sued to get something for their patents, which they weren't previously.
Sure, their asking price initially was pretty high, but that's how negotiations work.
This is an extant case which is now finally reaching its final stages.
And the lawsuit that Microsoft has leveled against Google has nothing to do with patents. Microsoft is trying to say that Google can't include its own apps and services as defaults on Android devices with that lawsuit.
And I wasn't calling you out. I was laying out a prediction, which you fulfilled in record time, I might add.
8. UrbanPhantom (Posts: 949; Member since: 30 Oct 2012)
Corporations have no soul; it matters little which one wins or loses from an ethical stand point, since there is no good or evil side, only big money playing games with consumers...
16. Aeires (unregistered)
I once caught a fish that was ... You get the picture, nice job on setting that hook. lol
19. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 8402; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Their asking price is ridiculous considering they're FRAND patents. I said it before and I'll say it again you can not put a price on something that's fair and reasonable.
Microsoft has had several lawsuits against OEMs for patent infringement. The right thing to do is license agreements since everybody wins then.
You were calling me out. I just had the be the one to feed you again.
3. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
FRAND was never meant to be used to bludgeon one's competition. OTOH, trying to claim patent protection for rounded corners is the definition of BULLSH*T!
10. ardent1 (Posts: 2000; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You want bullsh!*t!!
Bullsh*t is when an idiot that tells the world that ATT plans do a hostile takeover of T-mobile, which happens to be a private concern.
12. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Oh, I just remembered - you were the little one that was smugly predicting the merger would go through and then were royally pissed when it didn't. How much did you lose on the transaction? Are you having to work another 10 years before you can retire?
Don't play with $ you can't afford to lose.
17. Aeires (unregistered)
So one carrier taking over another carrier, which affects millions of subscribers, is a private concern. Who knew!
23. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
You are aware that the design patents for "rounded corners" are not FRAND and have nothing to do with actual technology patents right?
4. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 8402; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
What is it with Motorola wanting to abuse their FRAND patents? Do they not understand the concept of fair and reasonable?
6. Sniggly (Posts: 7297; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Take a look at my above comment, and quietly weep at your own predictability.
In the meantime, seems they weren't getting anything prior to the lolsuit.
Now they'll actually get something for the millions they've invested in improving our technology.
20. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 8402; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Predicatbility? If I made a bet that you'd comment on every article that's about Motorola I'd be a rich man.
You can't call me predictable at all.
Millions for a fair and reasonable patent is silly.
18. JunkCreek (Posts: 407; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)
apple had 1 billion for their rounded corner and bouncing back...
24. techloverNYC (Posts: 601; Member since: 20 Nov 2012)
Motorola is trolling on patent right now