Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Ah... that old excessive demand fallacy again | 86 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Ah... that old excessive demand fallacy again

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 01:12 AM EDT

They are fair, Motorola is excessive to their financial dreams, what's wrong
with that?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Microsoft licencing fee for h.264 technology is even less than what Google was awarded.

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 06:35 AM EDT

"Microsoft is claiming $8.00"

Actually Microsoft like Google/Motorola is also licensing AVC/h.264 technology.
So we can see exactly how much the difference is between what both parties were
asking for similar technology licensing.

Microsoft are getting a partial share of 25 cents per device shared by 30-40
other patentholders for AVC/h.264. So Microsoft is only claiming about $0.007 or
.7 cent per device for similar patents that Google/Motorola asked 2.25% for,
which comes to $22,50 for a 1000$ computer.
So Google/Motorola, even when bound by an FRAND promise, asked about 3000 times
more for simular technology than Microsoft has done.

And added to that Microsoft has also promised everyone never to ask for
injunctions on FRAND licensed technology.

[ 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 )