decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
One reason Microsoft sought this trial | 98 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
the $s
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:13 AM EST
A problem that MS will face is that in some markets its "proven" that
a royalty
rate $2bn is "acceptable" on just a handful of patents. Like in the
mobile
market. How much would the tablet market be worth if there was no wifi? Or if
wifi was just getting around to 54Mbps?

If you take a small number like the retail cost of a MS user license, $300,
multiply it by a small percentage like 1%. Then multiply it by the market size
(100mil?). You get $300mil. Of course a big question is, how many user
licenses of windows are out there? How many XBoxes were sold? What is the
value that the patents brought to those? How do you determine royalties
when MS could volume discount or bundle stuff to minimize royalties and just
sell "support"?

There is a reason for doing negotiations. Large companies are concerned
about this because a little money adds up quickly with high volume and really
so with extraordinary volume. MS put out the total number for PR, it starts
shocking people. How much does MS collect on royalties from Android
manufacturers even though MS had absolutely nothing to do with Android
development and has had issues bringing out Windows Phone OSes? How
much does MS bring in from Windows OS license sales?

Well, we're watching and waiting to see what the court rules and why.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

One reason Microsoft sought this trial
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 12:46 AM EST
I'm not sure that Motorola is avoiding a license.

According to Motorola they made and offer in October 2010, long after Microsoft
started using the technology in question and Microsoft apparently didn't respond
but started filing lawsuits.

It's not entirely clear to me that Motorola's actions were not prompted by an
effort by Microsoft to get Motorola to license it's "utility" patents.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

One reason Microsoft sought this trial
Authored by: PJ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 05:49 AM EST
Did you read all of Motorola's brief? They
address this point.

It's their standard opening bid. Normally
the other side then makes a counteroffer,
such as their own patents, and then they
work out a deal both can live with.

Microsoft instead tried to get a court to
say that the opening bid itself was a violation
of FRAND obligations.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )