6 ms·

> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensi

> So, why are people still paying up rather than fighting? Because patent litigation is incredibly expensive. It's cheaper to pay a $5 to $15 per device licensing fee than to pay a small fortune and take even a remote chance of failure in court. > Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents. So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?

pyre 11y ago
Maybe Samsung gets something out of it? Cross-patent licensing deal? It's also worth noting that MicroSoft started looking for license payments while Samsung was still in court with Apple of patent issues. It's very possible they didn't want another large lawsuit.
- zmmmmm 11y ago
  I think Microsoft in a number of cases has made the cross licensing so lucrative that companies end up ahead by licensing the patents. They would do this, of course, to establish the precedent that they can then use to go on an leverage against smaller players. It would not surprise me at all if Samsung was in this situtation.
microcolonel 11y ago
One reason might be Samsung's Windows laptop business.
Atropos 11y ago
This "cost of litigation" argument is probably bogus. Even some of the epic patent battles like Apple v. Samsung or other decade long arbitrations like Yukos vs. Russia were like 50-60 Million USD in legal fees.
- staticautomatic 11y ago
  Try 200+
  - rayiner 11y ago
    Apple's bill was probably under $80 million. It was ~$60 million through judgment at the end of 2013: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-fees-idUSBRE9B50QC20131206 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-fees-idUSBRE.... The subsequent appellate proceedings would be small in comparison. The bigger problem (for a large company) is the uncertainty caused by litigation. It's a distraction to the core business and can tie-up attempts to improve or expand on features accused in the litigation, not to mention it can spook investors.
newjersey 11y ago
I have no inside information but I can imagine a conglomerate like Samsung which has a lot of business to do with Microsoft (including notebook computers and so on) would only pay Microsoft if they received some sort of assurance that they would not be unfairly targeted. Samsung sells everything from notebook computers to solid state drives and everything in between. To repeat Don Draper in the Mad Men pilot (s01e01) > The Federal Trade Commission and "Reader's Digest" have done you a favor. They've let you know that any ad that brings up the concept of health and cigarettes together, well, it just makes people think of cancer. http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Mad-Men-pilot-script.pdf http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Mad-Men-pilot-scri... My thinking here is if I were in charge of all of Samsung, I wouldn't mind a $15 per device cost of doing business as long as I was reasonably sure that my competitors had to pay the same sum as well. If I were in charge of Samsung, my concern would be that Microsoft would play favorites with competitors like htc. Please keep in mind that there are no facts here. just my guesses.
sangnoir 11y ago
> So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court? Samsung simply stopped paying Microsoft the royalties after the Nokia purchase (Samsung claimed it was a breach of the agreement). Microsoft filed a suite, but after negotiations, the issue was settled[1] under confidential terms. Since then, Samsung now bundles Microsoft's software on its Android devices - feel free to speculate on the direction the payments might be going. 1.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung-settle-android-patent-royalties-dispute/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung...
Supraperplex 11y ago
Give me a billion dollars and I write you a mobile OS. Shoot me an email if you are interested.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- gvb 11y ago
  Does the billion dollars include indemnification against all patent and copyright lawsuits?
  - mikekchar 11y ago
    I don't know about the OP, but if you pay me up front my shell company will agree to indemnify you against anything you want. For various reasons, I will not personally be responsible for any of it and I do draw a heft salary because I'm awesome. But if there is any money left over after design meetings in the Bahamas on the corporate yacht, I'm sure there will be lawyers available to take it.
- kbutler 11y ago
  How about third party app development?

pyre 11y ago

Maybe Samsung gets something out of it? Cross-patent licensing deal? It's also worth noting that MicroSoft started looking for license payments while Samsung was still in court with Apple of patent issues. It's very possible they didn't want another large lawsuit.

zmmmmm 11y ago
I think Microsoft in a number of cases has made the cross licensing so lucrative that companies end up ahead by licensing the patents. They would do this, of course, to establish the precedent that they can then use to go on an leverage against smaller players. It would not surprise me at all if Samsung was in this situtation.

microcolonel 11y ago

One reason might be Samsung's Windows laptop business.

Atropos 11y ago

This "cost of litigation" argument is probably bogus. Even some of the epic patent battles like Apple v. Samsung or other decade long arbitrations like Yukos vs. Russia were like 50-60 Million USD in legal fees.

staticautomatic 11y ago
Try 200+
- rayiner 11y ago
  Apple's bill was probably under $80 million. It was ~$60 million through judgment at the end of 2013: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-fees-idUSBRE9B50QC20131206 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-samsung-fees-idUSBRE.... The subsequent appellate proceedings would be small in comparison. The bigger problem (for a large company) is the uncertainty caused by litigation. It's a distraction to the core business and can tie-up attempts to improve or expand on features accused in the litigation, not to mention it can spook investors.

newjersey 11y ago

I have no inside information but I can imagine a conglomerate like Samsung which has a lot of business to do with Microsoft (including notebook computers and so on) would only pay Microsoft if they received some sort of assurance that they would not be unfairly targeted. Samsung sells everything from notebook computers to solid state drives and everything in between. To repeat Don Draper in the Mad Men pilot (s01e01) > The Federal Trade Commission and "Reader's Digest" have done you a favor. They've let you know that any ad that brings up the concept of health and cigarettes together, well, it just makes people think of cancer. http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Mad-Men-pilot-script.pdf http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Mad-Men-pilot-scri... My thinking here is if I were in charge of all of Samsung, I wouldn't mind a $15 per device cost of doing business as long as I was reasonably sure that my competitors had to pay the same sum as well. If I were in charge of Samsung, my concern would be that Microsoft would play favorites with competitors like htc. Please keep in mind that there are no facts here. just my guesses.

sangnoir 11y ago

> So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court? Samsung simply stopped paying Microsoft the royalties after the Nokia purchase (Samsung claimed it was a breach of the agreement). Microsoft filed a suite, but after negotiations, the issue was settled[1] under confidential terms. Since then, Samsung now bundles Microsoft's software on its Android devices - feel free to speculate on the direction the payments might be going. 1.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung-settle-android-patent-royalties-dispute/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung...

Supraperplex 11y ago

Give me a billion dollars and I write you a mobile OS. Shoot me an email if you are interested.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
gvb 11y ago
Does the billion dollars include indemnification against all patent and copyright lawsuits?
- mikekchar 11y ago
  I don't know about the OP, but if you pay me up front my shell company will agree to indemnify you against anything you want. For various reasons, I will not personally be responsible for any of it and I do draw a heft salary because I'm awesome. But if there is any money left over after design meetings in the Bahamas on the corporate yacht, I'm sure there will be lawyers available to take it.
kbutler 11y ago
How about third party app development?