|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
| That's the question. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
Imagine how much more it could be if Microsoft has to pay
$2/unit... it's not just pretty good. It's even better.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 02:26 PM EDT |
Probably should use $50/unit of MS-Windows as the majority are
OEM copies, not retail.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, April 29 2013 @ 02:39 PM EDT |
| And this could be an explanation of why. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 01 2013 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
Step back from team MS or team Google for a second.
I'm not a fan of of MS but in the case of the wifi patents, why is MS
supposed to pay any licenses fees for wifi hardware chips in a HP, Dell,
Acer, Asus, computer?
When those OEMs buy wifi chips and install them in computers, they
assume they have all the licensing fees included in the chip price.
Moto wanted MS to pay license fees for the wifi chips.
Options
1 MS doesn't want to license Moto wifi patents, no Windows computers can
use wifi and Moto gets NO money
2 MS charges OEMs more money to cover license fees and OEMs pass
costs to the consumer.
Where is the win? Moto/Google make more money and computers cost
more?
What if the other 90/91 wifi patent owners decide to charge or threaten with
injunction, every Linux OS that violates their patents. Say goodbye to Linux
wifi.
If you support Moto's efforts, you support another 90 companies efforts to
charge Linux OSes for wifi patents.
Where is the rational thinking here? If you're pro OSS, you should be anti
Moto in this case.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
