|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:24 PM EST |
<blockquote>The issue here is that Microsoft and Apple have (allegedly)
been refusing to license their own (non-FRAND) patents (and
suing instead), while not paying the other companies for
licenses to their patents.</blockquote>
The key difference being that there's no obligation to license non-FRAND
patents, but there is to license FRAND ones. You are not comparing like with
like.
Apple and Microsoft are willing licencees - they have indicated they're prepared
to pay. But they don't think Motorola's demands are reasonable. So they've taken
it to court.
Microsoft's initial approach to Motorola (almost certainly over Android, since
it's
made the same approach to loads of other Android handset makers) was over
non-FRAND patents.
And then Motorola sought to countersue over its FRAND patents, and sought
injunctions. Motorola was the one that didn't want to pay, and it used its
standard-essential patents as leverage to try to make Microsoft stop. Microsoft
has to use Moto patents to make standards-compliant products. It has no option
but to use them. If Moto sets up a high enough price, it can set that against
Microsoft's demands on the non-SEPs, and get to zero payment.
But if that price isn't reasonable in Microsoft's view, it calls shenanigans.
And it
all goes to court.
Moto's use of its SEPs to big against non-SEPS is asymmetrical and the FTC
called
it "extortion". Repeat: "extortion". Microsoft didn't get
called out over its
demands against Motorola. There was plenty of chance for the FTC to look into
it. But you can charge what you like for non-SEPs. The Microsoft patents in
Android apparently aren't essential. Which is why Microsoft is raking it in from
Android device sales by Samsung, HTC, and others.
And that, simply, is the difference between standards-essential patents and
non-
SEPs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
