×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

148 comments

That's rich (5, Insightful)

damicatz (711271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127383)

This is coming from a company that makes a business out of extorting Android phone makers for money.

Re:That's rich (5, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127405)

This is coming from a company that makes a business out of extorting Android phone makers for money.

Oh, that's just a hobby. :-P

Re:That's rich (0, Troll)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127617)

Re:That's rich (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127923)

Ew, I feel dirty even looking at that website name.

Reading that for information on Microsoft is like reading Glenn Beck for information on Obama.

It is abject partisan crap set to an agenda.

Re:That's rich (2)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128257)

I first saw the link for this article here at slashdot. I also saw it being reposted a couple of times since then and being modded informative or insightful. Personally, I don't see what changed since then so I thought in reposting the link. Futhermore and despite your biasing, information is still information even if you don't agree with it.

Re:That's rich (0)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128631)

>information is still information even if you don't agree with it.

Glenn Beck's information is also still information. But it is repulsive to someone with half a brain.

Anyway I fail to see how that link is even relevant here.

Tech companies have a lot of failures. Looking at everything as a conspiracy is a sign of being biased.

Apple had it's own Copland which promised a lot and turned out to be vaporware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system) [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's rich (1)

miknix (1047580) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128977)

Anyway I fail to see how that link is even relevant here.

It is in the context of parent's Joke.

Tech companies have a lot of failures. Looking at everything as a conspiracy is a sign of being biased.

Conspiracy? It is just a pretty good sum of past Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. How is this a conspiracy? Is the (still running) fine imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission also a conspiracy?

Apple had it's own Copland which promised a lot and turned out to be vaporware.

And I believe it! Now is this motive to mod you down straight away and accusing you of following a particular agenda? Because that's exactly what was done to me.

Re:That's rich (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130431)

>Now is this motive to mod you down straight away and accusing you of following a particular agenda? Because that's exactly what was done to me.

Relax, moderation is not the be all and end all of Slashdot. Anyway, I accused the website you linked of following a particular agenda, not you. Read through the articles and if you don't find an agenda, then heaven save you.

The article you linked talks about vaporware, how is it a good sum of past MS anti-competitive behavior?

And if you think linking to Roughly Drafted is similar to linking to Wikipedia... well then I have nothing to say.

Re:That's rich (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127661)

Android, like most Google products, is just a predatory yet better copy of an existing product, to drive eyeballs to their ad network. Get over it.

-- Happy Galaxy Nexus user

Re:That's rich (3, Informative)

Dupple (1016592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127667)

MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit

Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.

That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.

This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part

Re:That's rich (5, Informative)

damicatz (711271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127757)

Microsoft charges Android phone makers $5-$15 PER PHONE for only a handful of patents.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127841)

But they're not FRAND patents. There's a difference

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128813)

Where is FRAND defined; do you know of any site which offers a legal definition of what the patent licensor and licensee both understand and accept that FRAND means? E.g. USPTO or EPO or ISO?

Re:That's rich (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127843)

And those fees are for non-FRAND patents.

Seriously, understanding the FRAND portion of these stories is very important to understanding why Motorola is in the wrong. Regardless of what you think of Microsoft, Motorola is abusing FRAND patents which is wrong.

Re:That's rich (2, Informative)

damicatz (711271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127889)

Sorry but I still don't see a problem. Microsoft and Apple are simply getting a taste of their own medicine. It's just desserts as far as I'm concerned.

Re:That's rich (5, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128235)

The problem is that if this is allowed, all the companies will start suing each other over technology that they previously added to the standard on the promise of FRAND.

Eg. Look at the large number companies in the H.264 patent list. http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avc-att1.pdf [mpegla.com]

Don't forget that MS has patents in the patent pool and a zillion other patents not in it. They can easily turn around and sue everyone in sight for exorbitant amounts for implementing standards.

And it will happen not just with H.264 but everything else too.

Imagine Nokia suing Motorola and Apple for $50 per phone for implementing LTE (a standard). You'd expect Apple and Motorola to rollout their own 4G network and towers?

Or MS suing Google over patents on Google docs importing MS Office documents (OOXML).

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128695)

There is no set ammount in FRAND. I personally think $100 to everyone for a patent is fair.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129603)

Motorola didn't contribute its patents to the pool. Do you believe they should be required to provide them to the pool regardless of their consent simply because its a standard? What prevents others from making new standards with the sole intent of getting free use of their patents?

Personally I'd like to see all software patents die a firey death but that's not the reality we live in today.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130451)

They declared them essential to the h.264 standard, and thereby obligated themselves to the standard's FRAND pledge. But they did NOT contribute the patents to the pool, so that they are in charge of licensing the patents on a onesie basis. Still have promised to be FRAND, and if ANYBODY claims they couldn't negotiate terms that ARE FRAND, they can sue.

What they actually get depends on a court's notion of FAIR, etc. By Microsoft's logic, Motorola is claiming that their patents are worth many times more than all the others put together; I can't see how that works out well for them.

As for all patents dying: in the case of standards such as GSM, CDMA, wifi, video, etc., it'd be damned hard to get firms like Moto to put in the engineering work on something hugely complex and interconnected, with a virtual guarantee that your competitors, who DIDN'T bear any of the cost, would use your work for free, gaining a cost advantage by depriving you of any compensation for your effort. The problem appears to be what an actual lawyer would call patent abuse, not the EFF type of concerns over Lodsys and their ilk.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129959)

Yes, it's great, a broken system will collapse under its own weight!

Re:That's rich (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130419)

All these companies are in all-out patent war with each other already anyway. I don't see why Moto should unilaterally disarm so Microsoft can kill them. Microsoft is upset because their Android mugging has been interrupted. Boo hoo.

Re:That's rich (4, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128941)

The case with Apple is a little more complex. While Apple does complain about Motorola not offering FRAND terms, their contention is the licensing fees in their case (3G/LTE) were paid already as the functionality was part of 3G chips they bought from Qualcomm. The nature of these chips and the Apple-Qualcomm agreements are the factors to consider. If these chips were stock chips that Qualcomm sells to everyone, most likely this usage is covered by Qualcomm's license with Motorola. If they were custom chips, then the details of the Apple-Qualcomm agreement matter. As a parallel, the first two generations of iPhones used Samsung designed ARM processors. Most likely Apple did not have to enter into separate licensing agreements with ARM as Samsung's licenses with ARM would have covered it. The A4 and A5 processors designed by Apple and made by Samsung would require separate agreements.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127977)

FRAND does not have to be a specific dollar figure to be fair. Maybe others are paying less cash to Motorola to use the patents BUT sharing something else with them of non cash value? They could have an overall sharing agreement between them that involves cash and other things. I do not know specific FRAND rules so maybe I'm wrong.

Re:That's rich (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127797)

You may want to check those figures again.
http://mobile.twitter.com/cdaffara/status/169836817376493568 [twitter.com]
"B&N lawsuit: MS asks $7.50-$12.50 per Android device = 3.8%-6.3% of Nook price. And they contest Moto 2.25% request."

http://www.geekwire.com/2012/judge-microsofts-android-tactics-hard-bargaining-patent-misuse [geekwire.com]

Re:That's rich (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127897)

True, but H.264 is a standard and comes with a patent pool. Exorbitant costs to implement a worldwide industry standard is not a good thing.

Re:That's rich (2, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128145)

There are a lot of things for which MS has patents (allegedly, since every settlement is under NDA) and are using them to demand the $7.50 from B&N and all other Android devices. Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.

Being a standard doesn't mean much when MS patent prices are argued. So why should it mean anything now?

If you can't see thru this blatant attempt to sway public opinion while at the same time hiding its double dealing via holding foreign companies, and playing divide and conqueror together with Apple, then you learned nothing at all about Microsoft in the last two decades.

And which MS trolls modded GP to zero, when it is clearly directly on point?

Re:That's rich (3, Interesting)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128323)

>Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.

Microsoft did not promise patent immunity over Fat32, which became a defacto standard.

Careful what you wish for, it may be granted.

This will open a Pandora's box on technology used to implement standards.

Nokia has the most patents on LTE which are deemed standards essential.

http://www.itproportal.com/2012/02/22/nokia-samsung-qualcomm-hold-most-lte-patents-claims-study/ [itproportal.com]

What if they sue Apple, Motorola for $50 per device based on Motorola getting away with this?

Will they roll out their own towers with their own 4G technology around the world?

Re:That's rich (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128881)

There are a lot of things for which MS has patents (allegedly, since every settlement is under NDA) and are using them to demand the $7.50 from B&N and all other Android devices. Standards that MS forced onto the industry, like Fat32, ExFat, MTP. The list goes on and on.

First of all, a lot of Microsoft's patents have been seen because they have not always been settled and have gone to court. While Microsoft may have some reasonable patents, but from what we have seen of the ones listed in court they have a lot that are complete crap too.

Secondly, FAT32 and ExFat are not standards. Only FAT is a standard. FAT32 is a patented extension to this, and ExFat is a proprietory file system. MTP Basic is a proposed standard, and is available royalty free.

Re:That's rich (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129001)

Sorry, but once the SD association adopted Fat32 and exFat, its a standard by any useful definition.

https://www.sdcard.org/consumers/sdxc_capabilities/using_sdxc [sdcard.org]

The exFAT file system used for SDXC is available on Microsoft Windows 7, Windows Vista and Windows XP (SP1 or later) with exFAT file system update (KB955704) available from the Microsoft Download Center.

Any SD card / MicroSD card over 32gig requires SDXC, which is exFat. So an entire line of hardware is tied to a Microsoft Patent. An ENTIRE LINE OF STORAGE DEVICES!!!

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127853)

Is MS actually paying a license fee based on the retail cost of the laptop or are you just repeating an example in the article? MS does not build and sell laptops so how would MS and Motorola know how much each is selling for at any given time?

Re:That's rich (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127879)

Your post is meaningless without context. What is the quality of the 2,300 patents vs the 50 that Moto holds? One of Motorola's patents could be worth 10 times all of the 2300 patents MS has put together. Just going by raw numbers is disingenuous.

Re:That's rich (2)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128999)

One of Motorola's patents could be worth 10 times all of the 2300 patents MS has put together.

They are not Microsoft's patents, they are the patents that Microsoft pay 29 companies to use - although I am sure that one of those companies is Microsoft, so they effectively pay themselves! From the article:

As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms.

Re:That's rich (4, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127925)

MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit

This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part

Not all patents have equal value. Numbers alone do not tell the whole story.

And I find it completely justifiable on Motorola's part, given Microsoft's treatment of them.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129661)

Even if you consider it Fair and Reasonable, it's certainly not Non-Discriminatory. The whole point of agreeing to FRAND licensing is that your patent becomes part of an agreed upon monopoly.

Re:That's rich (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130371)

Good point on the license cost. For MS to claim that Motorola is being unreasonable, there has to be a direct comparison to other licensees. If Motorola is charging MS much more than other licensees without justification, then MS is right. If Motorola is charging about the same, then it should be a non-issue.

Re:That's rich (4, Insightful)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127937)

Microsoft is an MPEG LA licensor [wikipedia.org] . Motorola is not.

MPEG LA claims that Theora and VP8 infringe on its members' patents, and implies it will take legal action [zdnet.com] against users of those codecs.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129723)

I don't know why, but I can't help but cringe when I see the word "imply" misused like that.

Re:That's rich (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129875)

Both Theora and VP8 were developed in the open, with source available.

MPEG-LA should have been approaching the developers when the patent violations were first found, so they could be licensed or the infringing code removed/rewritten.

Now that they're moving forward and taking a significant share of the market, MPEG-LA wants to rewrite history and claim patent infringement at this late date, now that there is money to be sued for.

Too bad.

As with a trademark, if you don't defend it in a timely fashion, you should lose your patent if you're not policing it's licensing and use BEFORE there is money to be made. Such an approach would ELIMINATE the infamous "submarine patent" so many trolls like to use, and save all KINDS of industries hundreds of millions if not billions in extortion fees.

Nature of the patent (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127949)

I am guessing MS only ask for 2 cent, because out of those 2000+ patents most are trivial. Now the question is are those 50 patent on motorola mobility trivial ?

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127967)

*shrug* I don't see why you're bringing Google into the mix. Google isn't currently going to change Motorola's patent licensing practices. :)

Re:That's rich (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128039)

What the fuck do you make up? Go back to microsoft-imaginationland please. This is not how it works.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120213092754823 [groklaw.net]

Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.

Re:That's rich (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129465)

Microsoft's FRAND terms and apple's on firewire have already been found discriminatory - kinda rich for them to be going after google for not asking for FRAND, which isn't compatible with open source.

Isn't the licencing of patents the way Motorola is doing also incompatible with open source?

Re:That's rich (3, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128111)

MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit

Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.

That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.

This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part

If moto owns the patent they can charge whatever they like for it (so long as they charge everyone the same). They don't have to justify the price to anyone. If MS or Apple decides the price is too high, they can opt to not license the patent (and of course not use whatever is the subject of that patent). Just because MS and Apple may have decided to make their mobile phone business dependent on someone else's tech does not mean that other tech must be a particular price.

OTOH If MS wins this one, I may file suit against BMW because I think that the 6 series convertible should be closer to $200.00 than what it is today. I'll keep my eye out!

Re:That's rich (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129595)

If MS or Apple decides the price is too high, they can opt to not license the patent (and of course not use whatever is the subject of that patent).

So you think that they should not implement the standard and roll their own solution?

Re:That's rich (3, Informative)

maccodemonkey (1438585) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129771)

No they don't. The patent is a FRAND patent. A condition for Motorola entering their patents into the 3G standard is that they have to become FRAND, which means they can't charge whatever they want. If they wanted to charge whatever they wanted, they shouldn't have put the patents into the 3G pool.

That's what all the arguing and suing is about. Microsoft (and Apple) are arguing that Motorola is ignoring their FRAND/3G pool obligations and attempting to charge more than they previously promised when they made these patents part of 3G.

Antitrust comes into the picture when Apple and Microsoft argue that Motorola is abusing FRAND patents that they had previously agreed on a price for to try to force everyone out of the 3G market illegally. And given Motorola's current decline, it's not all that unreasonable to think they might make their last stand as a SCO-esk patent troll.

Re:That's rich (2)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128125)

2,300 patents on H.264? I'm pretty sure you can implement H.264 in less lines of code than that.

Re:That's rich (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128437)

Does the number of patents matter as much as their relative importance? If the 2,300 patents are similar to the ones MS was trying to strongarm B&N to license, they're not worth even the 2 cents. But if the 50 patents are for key technologies, they might even be worth more than $22.50.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129011)

MS currently licence 2,300 patents relating to H.264 for 2 cents per unit. Google/Motorola want $22.50 for the remaining 50 patents it holds, per unit

Microsoft have entered cross licence deals for non FRAND patents with Android manufacturers.

That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a volume discount, but no one has to pay more than 20 cents per unit.) Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay more than 1,000 times that for use of just 50 patents. And that is for a $1,000 laptop. For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty - $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows.

This is unjustifiable on Motorolas part

I think the deal is that those $0.02 patents are trash and they don't want to charge more because they may get taken to court over them. The real patents are the ones that they charge money for, like those $22.50 patents. It is all about cost analysis.

Now how they want to license it based on the cost of the product is debatable.

Re:That's rich (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127899)

Yet no one has complained about MS's Android licensing terms to the EU...

Re:That's rich (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127985)

It's even coming from a company that charges 3x as much for it's "patented technology" and claims it covers all technology without outlining what "all technology" is defined as.

Re:That's rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128581)

If you think Google is any better feel free to ask Dell/Force10, Brocade, Cisco and Juniper how they enjoy being back-stabbed and threatened every time it comes to negotiate next year's support contracts. Google can (and they are) backstabbing assholes, you just don't see from the outside.

The obvious solution... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127429)

... don't sell the rights to anyone, at any price.

Re:The obvious solution... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127655)

The concept of an industry standard FRAND patent is that they are _REQUIRED_ to license the patent to _ANYONE_ at a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory rate. They agreed to that when their patent was accepted as part of an industry standard. If they didn't want to be bound by this restriction (and thus have control over who they licensed the patent to and who they didn't and at what rates they charged), they shouldn't have submitted the patents for inclusion in an industry standard technology.

You can't have it both ways - attempting to have it both ways leads to anti-competitive lawsuits...

Pot, meet Kettle. (5, Insightful)

Severus Snape (2376318) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127435)

I started to read the blog Microsoft wrote, I got as far as reading the title "Google: Please Don’t Kill Video on the Web" and couldn't read any more. Do Microsoft really think all of our memories are that short?

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127769)

I started to read the blog Microsoft wrote, I got as far as reading the title "Google: Please Don’t Kill Video on the Web" and couldn't read any more. Do Microsoft really think all of our memories are that short?

You really should RTFA. Google is the hypocrite here.

Basically, Google was all, "Patents are evil! h.264 is patented and evil! Use WebM instead, we're giving it away free, out of the goodness of our patent-hating, royalty-eschewing hearts!" Remember that?

Now Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264. Meaning, instead of charging a set rate, it charges a percentage of the sale price of the device. So apparently, to Motogoogle, the exact same h.264 decoder function is worth 3x as much in a $300 phone than in a $100 phone.

Apple is has filed complaints against Motogoogle over the exact same thing, but of course Apple is evil, like Microsoft, and unlike Google, which Does No Evil.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127983)

You really should RTFA. Google is the hypocrite here.

Yeah, I'm sure a blog by an MS suit towing the party line is going to just give us the impartial facts. This blog post is worthless without more information and any conclusions drawn from it are equally worthless.

Basically, Google was all, "Patents are evil! h.264 is patented and evil! Use WebM instead, we're giving it away free, out of the goodness of our patent-hating, royalty-eschewing hearts!" Remember that?

Yeah, it was all fun and games when Google was on the defensive. You thought you could just walk all over us with impunity. Ain't no fun when the rabbit got the gun is it?

ow Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264.

Drop the insane patent royalties against Android and we'll take that into consideration in the negotiations. Fucking hypocrites.

Apple is has filed complaints against Motogoogle over the exact same thing, but of course Apple is evil, like Microsoft, and unlike Google, which Does No Evil.

Apple and MS have been scratching each other's backs for a long time. Old guard mentality. Google will hand them their asses in the end.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129589)

Yeah, I'm sure a blog by an MS suit towing the party line is going to just give us the impartial facts. This blog post is worthless without more information and any conclusions drawn from it are equally worthless.

You can't provide facts that aren't impartial. Facts are facts. Whether they are convenient to your argument or not is another matter.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130075)

You are the dumbest motherfucker on Earth if you don't realize "facts" can be spun to support essentially any argument you want. Cherry picking and providing the full story are two different things.

Example for the slow:

Question: Do I buy this car?

Cherry picked fact: This car is safe

Full disclosure: This car gets 12 miles per gallon.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (5, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128109)

Now Google, by way of Motorola, is proving its own point by charging obscene percentage-based royalties on h.264.>

EXCUSE ME, BUT...

Google doesn't, or barely, owns Motorola yet. This action was set into motion long before Google has ever taken control. You might fairly be able to complain about Motorola, but not Google.

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129423)

As part of the acquisition process, Motorola had to get prior Google approval. Also, the declaration of intent published by google a few days ago said that they will continue Motorola present practices, gaining a warning from both the US gov and the EU commission.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/european-commission-clears-google.html

Re:Pot, meet Kettle. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129017)

You're showing your bias here. Google has not yet been cleared to acquire Motorola, is is legally prohibited from working with them on things like this until that deal closes.

Delicious irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127441)

You can't make this stuff up.

Re:Delicious irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127707)

Delicious irony

The irony is I don't think you know what that word means.

Re:Delicious irony (1)

voidphoenix (710468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127749)

Neither do you...

Re:Delicious irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128167)

Slashdot always has posts claiming people used the word irony wrong, even when it is used correctly. With the GP using it correctly and the sibling claiming it was wrong, posting that statement in that context does make it irony. The ironic form of sarcasism.

MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC (3, Informative)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127445)

And I suppose they think that MS is seen as a trustworthy by the EC. There is a big conflict between EC and Microsoft that was never resolved, even though the oversight is over.

Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC (3, Interesting)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127543)

and as far as I'm aware, the rolling fine the EC imposed on Microsoft is still going.

Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127915)

Not to mention the browser ballot imposed on Microsoft.

MS is not seen as trustworthy by anyone (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128653)

That "ballot" was self-imposed and no punishment. It still left their browser installed by default, and that was the heart of the matter: illegal bundling and undermining web standards [opera.com] . And even though the ballot let them get away with the illegal bundling, it still wasn't done right [arstechnica.com] .

Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by anyone (2)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130547)

Who cares, the post-PC world is almost here and Apple won't even allow you to install a real browser on their post-PC devices. At least MS always allowed that.

And no one seems to care.

Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC (0)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128101)

Apologies, I should cite my sources:

This [hostip.info] should clarify if you read the whole thing: in a nutshell, Microsoft were dragged through pretty much every US court by pretty much every service provider and competing browser, for bundling IE with Windows 95 OSR2. The claim that Gates made when the EU took him to task for continuing this trend in NT was that IE cannot be unbundled - it is part of the platform. The phrasing he actually used, IIRC, was "cannot be unbundled from the OS". The argument was that Win95 Gold did OK without a bundled browser; as did 3.1 and WFWG, which is completely logical in the face of it. Whether or not a single-vendor OS platform that comes bundled with a browser that already does everything and leaves the choice of whether or not to install Nutscrape or other browser to some political ideology, is a great idea, I leave to the reader to determine for himself, but as far as competing browsers were concerned, as they didn't have the option of bundling with the fastest selling desktop platform on the planet they felt a little put out - as I'm sure I would.

The whole argument, as far as I'm concerned, is a fallacy: I for instance wouldn't expect to find Windows 7 on my Mac, or Android on my iPhone - because they are competing hardware and software technologies on the same market, but as with shoes and everybody's favourite analogy, one size does not fit all. IF you want a computer for something a Mac is good at, you don't go buy a PC. If you want a computer for power gaming, YOU DO NOT GO BUY A MAC!

Microsoft bundling is not what killed Netscape, what killed Netscape was the bitching and moaning it made through its deluded fantasy that its severely outdated browser (that did not innovate because they were too busy biting the hand that fed it) deserved a space on a platform that they did not have any sort of hand in developing, and it died a well deserved death. Netscape usage fell because something better came along and Netscape stood stagnant. This might be an arguable point to some, but history recalls this as fact.

Back to the originating issue in this subthread: when it came to the point of arguing against bundling IE with NT, the EC imposed daily mounting fines on Microsoft sometime in the late 90's (I forget the exact date) for what it considered to be "anti-competitive policy". To date, even though the oversights have ended, I don't think any portion of the fines have been paid nor have the fines stopped. Please correct me if I'm wrong (don't forget citations!). In the US cases, Microsoft offered, and had accepted, the issue of discount vouchers to the value of the fines for individuals, groups and companies for volume licensing of Windows, Office/BackOffice and Exchange, and SQL Server. At around this time the price of new computer equipment also plummeted overnight because as part of this deal, Microsoft agreed to subsidise the ICO of PC equipment to all. It was the scam to beat all scams: Microsoft won anyway - they guaranteed sales and also guaranteed that nobody could force it to part ways with itself.

Re:MS is not seen as trustworthy by EC (1)

JAlexoi (1085785) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128595)

Oversight is over though. That fine is pretty much one of the aspects of the conflict.

Pot assails Kettle (1, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127451)

Perhaps a little negotiating is in order. Hmm?

I've always said the consumer benefits when these companies cooperate on technology, perhaps saner minds will triumph and all these idiotic lawsuits (and patents) will be pused to the wayside.

Did they ever commit to licensing on FRAND terms? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127473)

It sounds as if these are patents that Motorola never undertook to license on FRAND terms. Does anyone know whether that's accurate? It's hard to see why just becase a bunch of other people want to create a standard and license their own patents on FRAND that that should mean that everyone else has to as well. (Of course the patents themselves, like most such patents, are probably crap but that's another matter.)

Overplayed Their Hand (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127551)

(Posting AC because I'm at work)

Motorola overplayed their hand. They are abusing FRAND patents and they are going to be taken to task for it. It might take years to play out but it will end poorly for them. And, frankly, everyone on Slashdot should hope that is the outcome because the thought of any company with FRAND patents being able to abuse them as Motorola has been doing is a terrifying thought - it would stifle entire industries. It is anti-competitive in the very worst sort of ways. Anyone who thinks that Motorola should get away with this just because of who they are or who their opponents are isn't thinking this process through...

Re:Overplayed Their Hand (0)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127609)

Pot, meet kettle.... Holy shit, who do these guys think they are anyway??? I mean, WTF, the sheer brass of it all? And people wonder whjy I walked away from MS back when Win98 came out.

Re:Overplayed Their Hand (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129271)

Moto didn't overplay a damn thing. You guys are the ones overplaying, right now. And you know it.

Show me what Moto did that is any different from what MS is doing to Android. If MS wants FRAND then maybe they should offer FRAND.

Untiol then you guys really should STFU before you make yourselves look any worse.

I get these flashes sometimes... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39127565)

...and I'm picking up the prediction that Googel will be more than happy to put their patents away, if only MS does the same...
I guess the folks at Redmond can dish it out, but they can't take it...

Great timing (2, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127629)

Just as Google takes control.... Haven't Motorola been selling these licenses for like 10 years? Why is it only anti competitive now? Did they increase the prices more than inflation? My guess is the price is the same as it was years ago so they're effectively cheaper now and Microsoft, Apple and Google just hate each other.

Re:Great timing (4, Interesting)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127767)

So After reading TFA, This is about H.264. Wasn't Microsoft a backer of H.264 a few year ago? When Google was promoting their free WebM codec back in the whole HTML5 Video thing? Something along the lines of "If you use a non-free codec in HTML you will kill video on the web". All this before Google tried to buy Motorola.

Funny! (0)

Fri13 (963421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127641)

Now I think I have seen the funniest thing of decade (Damn! It is 2012 and decade is just at begin and last decade ended....).

1) Microsoft shows how they have still skills to start a good old FUD campaign http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4EbCkotKPU [youtube.com]
2) Microsoft files antitrust complain for competitor to enter market where it does not have control

Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft (4, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127893)

Oh boo hoo Microsoft. No sympathy here. Your extortion of Linux users, Android users, USB drive users, and pretty much everyone else in the computer industry for some of the most questionable patents earns you no sympathy here. And that's not to mention your threats where you won't even list the patents allegedly infringed that you're threatening over. And even that's not to mention how questionable some of these patents are. And that even further not to mention that patent trolls you've enabled when you haven't wanted to get your own hands dirty. And still not to mention how your licensing terms give you control over future hardware design decisions for devices that you don't even manufacture yourself (thank you Barnes & Noble Nook) And now you cry foul? You are pathetic!

Re:Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128073)

So it's ok for Motorola to anti-competitively abuse an industry because Microsoft acted poorly in the past and you don't like them? I do believe that's about as succinct a summary of the short-sighted opinions that are flowing in this thread...

Re:Oh Boo Hoo Microsoft (2)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128281)

So it's ok for Motorola to anti-competitively abuse an industry because Microsoft acted poorly in the past and you don't like them? I do believe that's about as succinct a summary of the short-sighted opinions that are flowing in this thread...

I believe that you are succinctly correct, although I needed details to make my case, hence an initial lack of succinctness.

But I also believe that you are wrong about deeming any of this short-sighted. The best corrective action for bad behavior on the part of any one player is to receive it back in return in spades. And let them become an object lesson for everyone else who wants to play this game as well.

Yes, I think that succinctly sums it all up.

Are we not objective anymore? (4, Interesting)

js3 (319268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39127933)

I've been reading the comments, and there doesn't seem to be any talk about the argument at all. Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?

Re:Are we not objective anymore? (5, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128193)

I've been reading the comments, and there doesn't seem to be any talk about the argument at all. Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?

I think that the valid discussion is: Live by patent extortion, die by patent extortion.

Also, FRAND said "Fair and Reasonable". Who defines "fair" and "reasonable"? The seller, or the buyer?

Once upon a time in the automobile industry all of the existing patent holders got together to pool their patents and prevent any new competitors from being able to enter the industry. The government finally put a stop to that. I'd say that, for the good of everyone else, the government needs to do the same here.

(Note: I don't support government intervention often, but the overall good of everybody is tied into our technological devices today in the same way that it once was in a fair market for automobiles.)

Enough discussion?

Re:Are we not objective anymore? (1)

animaal (183055) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128883)

Note: I don't support government intervention often, but the overall good of everybody is tied into our technological devices today in the same way that it once was in a fair market for automobiles.

I would have thought that the concept of patents and copyright are instances of government intervention. The government creates the legislation that grants temporary(!) monopolies to holders of these patents.

Lack of government intervention would mean that no such monopolies could be enforced.

Re:Are we not objective anymore? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129377)

I would have thought that the concept of patents and copyright are instances of government intervention. The government creates the legislation that grants temporary(!) monopolies to holders of these patents.

Lack of government intervention would mean that no such monopolies could be enforced.

I find that more of government encouragement of rewarding the effort to go out and improve things that benefit us all -- usually.

Re:Are we not objective anymore? (1)

Sez Zero (586611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39128593)

Just "taste of your own medicine" "deserves it" "that's rich". Are we too blinded by fanbiosm to even have a valid discussion anymore?

I was deservedly blinded by the taste of my own rich medicine.

In other words, you have pretty high standards for a Microsoft v. Google article.

Re:Are we not objective anymore? (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130023)

This is a case of a bully getting his ass handed to him and crying to the teacher. It has nothing to do with apple vs google vs microsoft vs linux fans. It has to do with a company acting with extreme hypocricy.

You're an MS fanboi, aren't you?

I don't know about you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39128357)

...but I hope Shitorola get's pwn3d badly. I can't stand Microsoft but I hate Shitorola even more.

--
Jas

Bullies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129113)

Bullies complaining about a new bully in the neighborhood. Ya know what they say, live by the sword...

MS fanbois (0)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 2 years ago | (#39129159)

MS fanbois are definitely out in force today. FUD city. If I had to choose between MS technology and no technology at all, then I freely choose to have no technology at all. Suck it fanbois.

Re:MS fanbois (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39129477)

MS fanbois are definitely out in force today. FUD city. If I had to choose between MS technology and no technology at all, then I freely choose to have no technology at all. Suck it fanbois.

And you'd still be higher on the tech ladder.

Not the whole story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130093)

I suspect that Microsoft isn't telling the whole story. If what they claim is true, that Motorola wants to charge 2.25% of the price of a computer, just for a some patents directly related to the H.264 standard, then they are breaking the FRAND terms. I think when Motorola responds, we'll find out Microsoft is leaving out some very important details.

Laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39130251)

Microsoft doesn't sell laptops, so the quote about a $1000 or $2000 laptop is specifically mentioned to disort the potential license fees. If Motorola is charging 2.25% for their H.264 patents, that would be 2.25% of the codec's value, not the value of the laptop. The value of the codec would be a portion of the value of Windows. Not $22.50 or $45 like they are deceptively claiming.

FM (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 2 years ago | (#39130573)

FM must be all kinds of butt-hurt, seeing as how all my posts have been down-modded. Gonna have to go back in history and find out what I posted that smacked him so hard. Truth hurts, eh?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...