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

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:52:00 +0000

kinda weird

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

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 00:50:00 +0000

kinda confusing

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

By: michael arazan

michael arazan — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 09:16:00 +0000

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

By: master94

master94 — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:52:00 +0000

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.

By: DavidB

DavidB — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 23:28:00 +0000

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.

By: David Bavin

David Bavin — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:00:00 +0000

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

By: James

James — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:15:00 +0000

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.

By: DanSan

DanSan — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:14:00 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:09:00 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:07:00 +0000

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.

By: Danfails

Danfails — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 20:05:00 +0000

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.

By: DanSan

DanSan — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 19:31:00 +0000

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..

By: Droidzilla

Droidzilla — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:45:00 +0000

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

By: 4n1m4L

4n1m4L — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:45:00 +0000

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.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:20:00 +0000

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.