Feeds

back to article Googorola loses bid to ban US Xbox sales after ITC slapdown

The International Trade Commission (ITC) has denied an attempt by Google to impose a US-wide sales ban on Microsoft's Xbox by rejecting the claim that might have cost Redmond $US4bn in royalties. "This is a win for Xbox customers and confirms our view that Google had no grounds to block our products," David Howard, Microsoft …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Happy

And... all the Android OEMs paying for Microsoft patents won the right to arbitratrate down their payments. Microsoft's contingency fee lawyers should factor the net gain into their fee.

0
3
Bronze badge

This went to court because Motorola's patents are parts of standards and are required to be used if you want to use HDMI. When they became part of the standard Motorola agreed to licence those patents at a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rate which they didn't hence why the courts are involved.

Microsoft's patents are not part of any standards and thusly OEMs can turn to alternatives. As the patents are used by choice not necessity Microsoft, or any non-standard patent holder, is within their right to charge what they like.

0
4

Yeah, MS didn't even try to negotiate right, just ran to the judge.

So they get the patents they need for next to nothing, can't be punished for not paying, but can lock out others from using any of their tech.

No-one will submit anything of worth to a patent pool in future, it's just been shown to give away everything for no benefit, and you're far better off keeping it to yourself to allow room to sue later.

Very odd ruling, and something MS will end up also being hurt by at later points in time.

7
2
Silver badge

Patent pools

No-one will submit anything of worth to a patent pool in future, it's just been shown to give away everything for no benefit, and you're far better off keeping it to yourself to allow room to sue later.

----

You've got a pretty narrow minded point of view here. Basically if Google/Motorola can't use it as a hammer in the way Microsoft uses whatever patents they've got that get Android OEMs to pay up, the whole idea of patent pools is flawed.

The reality is that companies have a tremendous incentive to become part of standards committees that decide the next generation standards:

1) they get to help decide the direction of those standards, instead of letting others do it for them

2) where they contribute their own patents they're turning the standards in directions where they've got engineering expertise, which may give them a leg up against the competition, especially during the crucial early adopter phase for new technology where the chance to become one of the major established players (or an also ran) is best

3) they don't have to worry about other members of the pool suing them over any of the patents within it (OOPS, I guess Google/Motorola violated this rule, but aside from them it has been almost universally observed in the tech world for several decades)

When the next generation standards get decided, anyone is free to sit on the sidelines and not take part. If they're lucky, maybe the technology that gets adopted is something they have patents to cover, and if so they might be able to cash in. On the other hand, maybe the experts in the standards committee are smarter than the average patent officer and able to do patent searches better, so they just design around your patents and you're left out in the cold with patents that have almost zero value.

Unless you believe you own some sort of basic patent that covers ever possible implementation (the type that the lawyers for a collective of dozens of tech companies would probably have little trouble getting invalidated) sitting it out is almost certainly a losing strategy and a way to guarantee your company is not seen as a tech leader. That would be sad fate indeed for a company with the history of a Motorola, especially if it was done out of clueless spite.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Patent pools

HIs view maybe narrow, but it is correct.

All of the 'benefits' you've just listed pale into insignifigance when compared to having people like Apple use your patented technology, which you put into the pool, only to then tell you they won't be paying the same as everyone else who uses the patented technology, they'll be paying whatever they see fit. Just ask Samsung, who've been royally fucked over in exactly that way.

5
1
Silver badge

Re: Patent pools

All of the 'benefits' you've just listed pale into insignifigance when compared to having people like Apple use your patented technology, which you put into the pool, only to then tell you they won't be paying the same as everyone else who uses the patented technology, they'll be paying whatever they see fit. Just ask Samsung, who've been royally fucked over in exactly that way.

----

That would be true if correct, but you're apparently brainwashed by Google's lie. Motorola wants Apple to pay 2.5% of the cost of their ENTIRE PHONE to license a few patents. No one pays that. Not even close. What they pay is 2.5% of the price of a single chip that goes in their phones, and the chip costs only a few dollars. It is not fair, reasonable, or non-discriminatory to charge one company 15 cents for your patents and another company $15.

It is a blatant violation of the deal Motorola signed that made those patents subject to FRAND. Google knows it, but they rely on clueless fools like you who believe the "Don't be evil" lie and think they're in the right and Apple and Microsoft are in the wrong. Apple and Microsoft are in the wrong on some things, but here Google is in the wrong and Apple and Microsoft are 100% in the right. I know it hurts Google fanboys to read that, but its true.

This was all a scam Google concocted as their rationale for massively overspending to buy Motorola, where they terminated the licensing deals with Qualcomm for only the chips they sell to Apple, which Apple had been paying the 2.5% on (to Qualcomm, which Qualcomm then passed back to Motorola along with the licensing costs that anyone else buying Qualcomm chips, like Samsung, was also paying) They pulled the same basic scam on Microsoft.

The courts have rightly said this is complete bullshit, and won't let them do it. No company is under any obligation to license any of their patents to anyone else. Unless they sign an agreement, like the cross licensing agreements Apple and Microsoft have. Or like the agreements companies sign when they join a standards group. They can't decide later that it is in their best interests to back out from that agreement, any more than you can go back to the house you sold in Malibu 20 years ago and say "I know I sold that to you for $200,000, but now that its worth $6.5 million I think it was a mistake, I'd like to go back on that deal".

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Good

The only good patent infringement claim is the lost patent infringement claim.

1
3
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Good

That totally depends on the merit of the patent.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Good

The legions of google fanboys on the Reg appear to disagree with you.

Their version probably goes "the only good patent infringement claim is one filed against Microsoft, however spurious".

1
1
This topic is closed for new posts.