Share this Story

Google Says Microsoft Will Earn $94 Billion in Revenue Through Google-Owned Patents

A trial that featured six days of testimony between Microsoft and Google-owned Motorola just finished up. The final expert witness for Google says that Microsoft, through its Xbox and Surface devices, will make a whopping $94 billion in revenue through 2017 based on patents that Google owns. The expert witness went on to say that Microsoft will have a hard time selling tablets or phones without Moto’s patents.

Motorola has been seeking $4 billion a year for Microsoft to use the patents, Microsoft says they only are worth $1 billion. There is no ruling expected for a few weeks as this gets decided, but it’s the first time that we have seen Google put their might behind a case and defend their intellectual properties.

Via: Reuters

  • Mike

    kinda weird

    doesnt google have motorola patents
    how would microsoft make money by illegally using something

  • master94

    If MS thinks these patents are worth a billion dollars than clearly Apple is bullshitting when the say that Moto patents are worth less than a dollar.

  • DavidB

    This is obviously Google trying to get back at MS for the patent fees they have managed to extract from practically every maker of Android phones.

  • Damn all I can say is that that’s a lot of money.

  • DanSan

    am i missing something?… article says MICROSOFT will make 94 billion using GOOGLE patents. Unless im not quick on the draw or this is poorly written I assume they mean Microsoft will make 94 billion in sales? How else could microsoft make 94 billion off a Google patent..

    • Danfails

      They’re saying Microsoft will make 94 billion off of products that they intend to sell through 2017 that are currently using patents owned by Motorola, which Google now owns. I had no problem understanding this “poorly written article.” Maybe you’re just confused.

      • DanSan

        Lol nice name troll. The article is kind of misleading and doesn’t say how they are going to make that money. Also looks like you’re right I was confused and I never said it was poorly written, it was one or the other and obviously I was misunderstanding it. Thanks for your help. Boy I would have never figured it out without your help.

  • Droidzilla

    Google’s generally a defensive patent holder. I wonder if this has to do with MS going after OEMs like HTC.

  • Pedro

    The article actually says that MS thinks they should pay $1 million (not billion).
    And, @James, Moto is indeed entitled to royalties from all of their essential patents. Why give them away of you can collect a penny, a nickel or a buck from every smartphone sold? Volume, volume, volume. 100 million times a penny is still a free $1 million dollars!

    • 4n1m4L

      sounds like microsoft just needs to accept that they got into the mobile computing game late, and that they don’t get special pricing because of who they are.

    • James

      No, I am not at all saying they should give them away.. I said if the suit was over innovation rather than profit then Moto may as well give the licenses away and that was in response to another posters comment about licensing as the result of wanting others to be able to innovate and not about making money. I think Google/Motorola/Ms should make as much profit as they possibly can without violating the rights of each other of course… Force is bad.

      • michael arazan

        With Microsoft teaming up with apple against Google with both of their lobbyist on Capitol Hill to do whatever they can to hurt Google by any means possible, I’m not surprised Google is trying to hit them where it hurts. The less money MS has the less lobbyist they can use. If MS hadn’t teamed up against Google, they might have had a fair chance for better than reasonable licensing deals, MS made it’s bed, now lie in it

      • Mike

        kinda confusing

        doesnt google have motorola patents
        how would microsoft make money by illegally using something

  • Dorian Brooks

    At least they’yr not trying to outright ban the stuff. Meet in the middle for say 2.5 Billion. It would be good PR.

  • James

    Why can’t Google just tell them, “No, you are no longer allowed to use our (Motorola’s) patents? If they don’t want to pay what Google thinks they are worth then why let them use them at all?

    • They do not want to stifle innovation like apple, so they license them rather than say “No, don’t use that.”

      • James

        If that’s the case then why charge them at all? You can’t tell me that’s the case when they are in court to require Ms to pay more. This is about money, not innovation. Again, if Google feels they are not being paid enough for their IP then they should simply deny the use of it. Ms will pay what they think it’s worth… so not sure why the courts even need to be involved on this one.

        • JRomeo

          would you say the same logic applies to apple’s rounded corner on a smartphone patent towards samsung?

          • James

            Logic is something that applies regardless of your feelings on the matter. I believe what you should be arguing is whether granting a company an IP patent on “round corners” is logical to begin with. I don’t believe IP of that nature is being discussed in the suit between Google and Ms.

        • Pedro

          If it’s a FRAND patent, then Moto can’t deny access.

          The patent MUST be licensed in a Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory manner. So if vendor A can license the tech for $x, then vendor B can claim that $x is fair, and go from there.

          Of course, the article doesn’t mention if any of the patents in question are FRAND.

          • James

            Must it be licensed at all? I guess that’s my question here. If Google doesn’t like what they are paid then can’t they just revoke the license? Agreed though, I need to do more FRAND-related research. Thanks for the reply. I just don’t think any company should be “forced” to license any IP to anyone if they don’t want to.

    • Sathariel

      I believe it has something to do with FRAND. Certain patents are required to be licensed fairly to others for use as they are standard essential. Don’t know all that much about patents but I believe the patents in dispute here are FRAND patents owned by Motorola.