You would never catch Microsoft demanding royalty rates above and beyond anything that is fair and reasonable, say like $10 or $15 per machine sold from Asus or Acer? Oh no.
Microsoft has filed suit against Motorola, not for patent infringement but for refusing to license patents on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (Frand) terms like it promised. Microsoft is suing Motorola, claiming that the licensing terms Motorola is demanding exist "for the purpose of extracting unreasonable royalties …
Microsoft is trying to ensure that they don't have to charge $20 or $25 to Asus or Acer. Part of the cost of a Windows licence is the per-copy royalties for MPEG2, MPEG4 AVC (H.264), WiFi, JPEG, etc, etc. 'Fair and non-discriminatory' means the same terms for all licensees, and that's something MS have had to swallow - that they can't charge Acer more than they charge Asus or Dell.
Suing Motorola over Android was a big mistake. HUGE. Microsoft is just now figuring out how huge.
FRAND doesn't preclude a company from conducting reasonable negotiations for things of value other than money - technology cross-licensing for example. And if the negotiations take so long that products are delayed, that can't be helped. Microsoft would never play this game to its own competitive advantage with ActiveSync and the other patents they're suing people over. Oh, no.
Would Big Oil companies purchase a patent for powerful batteries for electric cars only to sequester the patent and not license it at any price?
Obviously, Motorola must create a market for its patents through licensing to create consumers, otherwise it would realize no revenue from the patents. Greed works only to a certain point where licensees fail to pay to use the patents and then there is no consumer market and lost revenue.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020