|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 11:23 PM EST |
I'm not the guy you are quoting but I strongly disagree that the Moto offer
was reasonable.
Think off it this way, if HP sells a PC for $400, the parts cost $320, MS gets
$50 for a Windows license and HP makes $30.
Why should Moto get 2.25% of $400 when MS are only making $50. HP is
paying $320 to Intel for their chips, WD or Seagate for HDs, RAM etc....
If HP sells a PC for $4000, MS still only earns $50 for their license. HP
pays more to Intel etc... For more expensive parts, but hopefully HP earns
a couple hundred dollars profit.
You are saying that Moto deserves 10 times more on a $4000 PC even
though it is doing the exact same thing as the $400 computer.
You are arguing that Moto wanting $9 from MS, who earns $50 for
Windows license on a $400 PC, for a minor video patent that does a tiny
fraction of what Window does, is reasonable?
That's almost 20% of the money the MS makes, for a tiny feature compared
to the entire Windows OS.
It would only take Moto and 5 other patent holders behaving like Moto, for
MS to be losing money. MS is not going to lose money, so they'll raise their
license fee to HP, therefore raising prices to consumers.
On a $4000 PC with Windows Pro or Ultimate, MS earns around $85-$100
per license. In this situation Moto's 2.25% is $90. If one other patent holder
behaves like Moto, the $4000 workstation will never be built bc MS will owe
more to two companies in patent license fees than they earn from their
windows license.
How is this reasonable?
Lets take this further.
If a Boeing or Airbus sells an Airplane for $100 million ( to be easy using
round numbers.)
If a subcontractor installs a video system for $200,000 to Airbus which
costs the subcontractor $100,000, the subcontractor makes $100,000
profit. 100% profit sounds great to the employees and stock holders until
Moto shows up.
Moto says the video system uses our patent and even if the h.264
interlaced video is used less than 1% of the time, Moto's "reasonable"
patent offer is $ 2.25 million per $100 million airplane when the
subcontractor is doing awesome at 100% profits$ 100,000 cost and
$200,000 sales per plane. How can the subcontractor pay $2.25 million to
Moto for every $100,000 profit it earns? Please enlighten me?
$100 million airplanes do more than play interlaced h.264 video
$400 PCs do a lot more than play interlaced h.264 video.
How any intelligent person thinks mostly unused interlaced h.264 deserves
2.25% of the final sale price is ....Unreasonable.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
