|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 26 2013 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
| IOW, any company that was named as paying that rate, would be instantly
identified as a bunch of suckers who knew nothing about business, and
even
less about negotiation.
It all depends on what your product is. If you
have a product that does exactly
one thing, and therefore 99% of the value of
the product is in one patent, then
2.25% is cheap. If you look at a modern
smartphone that does hundreds of
things, that could easily be covered by
hundred patents. 100 times 2.25% =
225% of the sale price. Now if that
smartphone uses some chip for one of its
hundred functions and that chip is
covered by a patent, 2.25% of the price is
quite reasonable - if you take the
price of the chip, not the price of the phone
with 99 other functions. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 27 2013 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
"What you fail to understand is that the 2.25% rate is a _starting_
point"
What you fail to see is that if someone required to give you a fair an
reasonable (license) price than asking 50 million dollar for buying a KIA Cee'd
would not likely be considered reasonable either.
In serious negotiations you might over ask by 100% but not by 4 million
percent.
Google/Motorola could have asked 10 million dollar which is probably 100 times
more than Microsoft themselves get trough the MPEG-LA patent pool from Google
for the use of Microsofts own AVC/h.264 patents. 10 million would already have
been fairly high but possibly not unreasonable.
Asking for billions certainly was.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
