3 ms·
That last alternative appears to be what Motorola is doing. I'm pretty sure Microsoft's executives are not confused on this point.
by othermaciej 15y ago
That last alternative appears to be what Motorola is doing. I'm pretty sure Microsoft's executives are not confused on this point.
- fpgeek 15y agoYou're missing a subtle distinction. Motorola promised to license these patents on FRAND terms, but they are not part of the MPEG-LA or any other patent pool with respect to these patents (something which, AFAIK, is not required by any FRAND commitment). From what I've heard, Motorola's terms are non-discriminatory - they ask for the same schedule from everyone. So then the question turns on whether Motorola's terms are "fair" and "reasonable". On that point, I suspect the debate will be endless - especially once you include the issue of "fair" and "reasonable" treatment of past infringement (both of which Microsoft and Apple have to contend with).
- othermaciej 15y agoIt's not clear that they are asking the same royalty schedule of everyone for their FRAND patents. We only know what they said the cap would be, and what they asked of a few specific companies in some cases. And that cap seems to be out of line with industry norms for what is "reasonable". We also know that Motorola has taken at least one action that could be taken as discriminatory. Specifically they apparently licensed some 3G-related patents to Qualcomm including full rights for Qualcomm's customers to use those patents, then claimed to have terminated those patent rights with respect to Apple as a third-party beneficiary: <http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-us-antisuit-lawsuit-against.html> http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-us-antisuit-l....