Microsoft to Moto: We'll give you $1m a year for your patents Microsoft and Googorola are having a slight difference of opinion when it comes to how much Redmond should pay for Motorola Mobility's video and Wi-Fi patents. Microsoft reckons that no more than $502,000 a year is fair for Moto's H.264 video patent - which is used in Xboxes and other MS gear - and $736,000 a year is a fair …
When does the industry just move away from FAT32 and just let the consumer install a driver? Microsoft can keep FAT32 and either Microsoft will just include the driver or Windows users get inconvenienced. Dumping FAT32 would drop the prices of a lot of electronics or allow bigger profits on them. Either way, anytime Microsoft loses it is a good thing.
The $5 per handset is not just for FAT. The licensing terms that Microsoft has is $0.25 per device with a cap of $250,000 per license agreement. $250,000 is 50,000 units. Since every manufacturer is selling more than 50,000 units, they would be paying the cap of $250,000. Technically, Google could be paying for the license and thus Microsoft only sees $250,000 per year and encompasses every Android handset. They may not let a license be transferable though.
Just maths, eh? Well, technically, a gearbox is just that, too. So are computer programs. In fact, when you come right down to it, everything but art is dictated by mathematics. And even then, some art - music, for instance - is bast on equations.
Saying "Applied Maths shouldn't be patentable" is roughly equivalent to "Nothing should be patentable."
> Just maths, eh? Well, technically, a gearbox is just that, too
No. Wrong. A gearbox is lumps of metal. I don't know if there ever was a patent on 'a gearbox', but there certainly were patents on particular enhancements to it. For example on synchromesh. Gears are normally engaged by dogs. synchromesh ensures that the gear is 'spun up' to speed before attempting to engage the dog. It could be done by first engaging a spring loaded cone clutch. That isn't 'just maths'.
> everything but art is dictated by mathematics.
It may be dictated by natural laws, these laws may be described by mathematics, but that doesn't mean that 'everything _IS_ maths'.
> music, for instance - is bast on equations.
And that is _exactly_ why music cannot be patented (it can be copyrighted).
Ah, it's just atoms with their electrons anyway. Manipulate the mass in a certain way and you have a gearbox.
Manipulate atoms in doped silicone to emit photons in a certain way according to specified methods, isn't that much different from that gearbox.
Either your with patents or your against, maybe just maybe you don't care, but as you commented what you commented that's highly unlikely.
>I'm not sure you understand this case. It will be bad for the whole IT industry if Motorola/Google get their way.
Maybe the IT industry should just use WebM instead.
>Motorola is asking for 10 times as much as is needed to licence a package of several hundred patents
If you're referring to MPEG-LA, then the requested amount is pretty much on par actually.
>>I'm not sure you understand this case. It will be bad for the whole IT industry if Motorola/Google get their way.
>Maybe the IT industry should just use WebM instead.
I would be slightly surprised if it really is free of all patents (except those Google owns and freely licenses). Also it requires the content industry to do likewise and cut off all current mobile phones and tablets or double encode all the content. It isn't likely to happen now, H.264 is pretty firmly entrenched until something else comes along with double the efficiency.
>>Motorola is asking for 10 times as much as is needed to licence a package of several hundred patents
>If you're referring to MPEG-LA, then the requested amount is pretty much on par actually.
Apart from anything there is an annual cap in the MPEG-LA license for H.264 which is capped at $6.5M until 2015 so less than 10% of what Google is asking for.
$6.5M annual cap for all the devices you can make for all the patents in the portfolio (at least several hundred from 35 companies). You might have an additional similar cap for content you produce too but I haven't checked. Obviously you can pay less if you don't make enough products to reach the cap (first 100K free, 10c or 20c per unit depending on volume).
Readable summary of MPEG-LA terms here: http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf
Yes I expect that MS have MPEG-LA licenses in two categories - as an manufacturer (Xbox, Surface...) and as an PC OS supplier (Windows) plus probably title by title license for Xbox live PPV content. They probably hit the cap for both the manufacturer and OS categories but probably not on the PPV content category so they are probably paying something around $15M to the MPEG-LA annually (6.5 + 6.5 + 2). The $6.5M cap is an enterprise cap for as many different products as you sell you only have to pay it once in each category.
I would expect that once an FRAND rate has been settled by the judge (or in negotiation) there will be little argument from MS about having to pay back royalties to whatever date is relevant (which may be further than 2007) subject to patent grant dates and if there is a limitation on legal claims of this kind.
Google would probably need the OEM manufacturer's license for Motorola (possibly not to the cap though), would mostly use the free content license for free internet video for Youtube but will need license for content in the Play store.
Unfortunately, it was bound to head there once people started generating serious money through threatened or actual litigation, and having companies buy up other companies just for IP. Now comes the effort to monetize all that purchased IP....
Maybe an interesting legal basis for Microsoft might be: "for the good of the business sector and orderly process of good order and continuity to end users"?
The legal precedent might be one that acknowledges a multiple of rights such as rights of the patent holder, rights of existing licensees, rights of end-users with (maybe) software that is quite old yet equally reliant on patents that have somehow changed in importance over recent times?
In other words: justice has to be fair and make a ruling that respects all the rights of all parties and at the same time make allowances for changes when a relatively minor patent may evolve to relatively major importance simply be the way a market or technology super-evolves.
If the google or any party takes action the judge has to consider the existing rights of those who might have historical access to the patents.
The judge might also wish to set precedent in procedural terms when a patent has been catapulted from relatively minor importance to relatively major importance by whatever.
The rights of all (as in A-L-L) have to be considered in the round without preference to either party and for the better good of the sector in general (in other words: death to patent trolls, life and fairness to all?)
This post has been deleted by its author
Patent me that,
Who's afraid of the Redmond....<insert nawty word here>.
MS grabs $5 per handset.
Google gargles $100 mill or whatever for H264.
Apple slurps X for Y
Samsung...
The money goes around and around, time is lost, courts choked up and in the end it is zero sum (except for the lawyers). It's almost as if the world would be better off without this patent garbage on software; then folks would just get on with stuff.
But wait! Where would the investment go if it couldn't be protected? Well, they are already wasting sky-fairy knows much on lawyers and lost suits; perhaps than money would cover these mythical loses that would be incurred.
All you fandroids whining about how MS has it coming to them because they're shaking down the Android OEMs for $5 or whatever per phone are missing the point. Assuming this is for the FAT32 patents (this is the guess but I don't think it has ever been proven) it is totally their fault for deciding to use FAT32. FAT32 is NOT a standard in the same way h.264 and 802.11 are. It is something Microsoft made up and a lot of people use because Windows knows how to read/write it, but since it was never submitted to a standards body it isn't subject to FRAND licensing. Microsoft is free to charge whatever they want for it, or refuse to let anyone use it. Why Android decided to use FAT32 at all I have no idea since it is such a shitty filesystem, but when MS came calling they should have switched to use something not patent encumbered like the Linux ext3 filesystem. It is totally the fault of the Android OEMs that they stuck with FAT32 despite having no reason whatsoever to use it. That bad decision is now apparently costing them a billion dollars a year.
Motorola trying to get 10x as much as the entire MPEG-LA pool (which is way more than 10x more patents than Motorola has for h.264) is ridiculous. I love how shortsighted people who hate Apple and Microsoft are - so long as they are the ones looking to get screwed, they will look the other way and cheer it on. I guess they have never heard of or failed to understand Martin Niemöller.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
