

Microsoft to Google: Please Don’t Use Patents to Kill Video on the Web - mbrubeck
https://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_on_the_issues/archive/2012/02/22/google-please-don-t-kill-video-on-the-web.aspx?Redirected=true

======
gvb
_For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of
$22.50._ That is 2.25%.

According to reports, that is roughly the royalty percentage Microsoft is
getting from Android phone sellers ($5 to $15 per phone $15/$500 = 3%).

<http://www.mobiledia.com/news/107165.html>

~~~
shrikant
Linked within that page is also this:
<http://www.mobiledia.com/news/104161.html>

_Microsoft Wants to Ban Motorola Phones in U.S._

 _"Motorola is infringing our patents and we are confident that the ITC will
rule in our favor," said David Howard, Microsoft's deputy general counsel for
litigation._

 _"We are vigorously defending ourselves against Microsoft's patent attack
business strategy," said Motorola in a responding statement. "We have also
brought legal actions of our own in the U.S. and in Europe to address
Microsoft's large scale of infringement of Motorola Mobility's patents."_

He who lives by the sword...

~~~
nextparadigms
I didn't even know that. So they wanted to _ban_ Motorola's products from US,
and they complain about Motorola wanting to "only" charge them a little too
much? Wow. If I were them I'd be thankful Motorola didn't adopt their own
tactic.

~~~
mbrubeck
Motorola and Microsoft _are_ using the same tactics. Both are trying to get
injunctions against alleged infringing products:

 _"In legal proceedings on both sides of the Atlantic, Motorola is demanding
that Microsoft take its products off the market, or else remove their
standards-based ability to play video and connect wirelessly."_

This is a standard move in these patent battles; the same thing happened in
the various Apple/Samsung/etc. cases of the past year. I presume the threat of
lost sales is meant to motivate the other party to settle quickly (i.e., pay
up!).

------
nextparadigms
When Google accused them of being patent bullies, Microsoft called Google
crybabies. So who's the crybaby now? Not to mention that they are still
bullying every single Android manufacturer out there to give them money on a
product they didn't make.

So, Microsoft, you probably heard this a few years ago, too, but: _Please
don't use patents to kill an open source OS_.

~~~
othermaciej
Whatever you may think of licensing software patents in general, I hope we can
agree that promising to license a standards-essential patent on FRAND terms
during a standards process, and then reneging, is considerably worse. I work a
lot with standards groups, and I don't think the process could work very well
if just any company could add their patented IP to the standard and then sue
competitors for injunctive relief based on it. That would be destroying one of
the few safe spaces in the patent landscape.

~~~
chives
I agree with you, but by the same token. MS has been a patent troll for years,
the nortel patents is only the most recent case. Oh and look, Google took
notice. The shoe is on the other foot and Google is using it as a bargaining
chip.

They are telling MS "leave android alone, or we make sure all of YOUR products
take a hit. Worst case scenario, we create a massive shit storm, who do you
think will lose more? Want to bet your company on patent trolling?"

I am happy they are going after one of the biggest bullies on the playground.

~~~
othermaciej
Microsoft promised not to abuse any standards-essential patents it acquired
from Nortel, while Google refused to make a similar promise.

The US Justice Department said: "During the course of the division’s
investigation, several of the principal competitors, including Google, Apple
and Microsoft, made commitments concerning their SEP licensing policies. The
division’s concerns about the potential anticompetitive use of SEPs was
lessened by the clear commitments by Apple and Microsoft to license SEPs on
fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, as well as their commitments
not to seek injunctions in disputes involving SEPs. Google’s commitments were
more ambiguous and do not provide the same direct confirmation of its SEP
licensing policies."
<[http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html&#...](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/February/12-at-210.html>).

What has Microsoft done with Nortel's patents that you would count as "patent
trolling"? I am not aware of anything they have done that would meet any of
the definitions here
<[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll>](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll>).

~~~
fpgeek
Microsoft did make a promise, but they're also trying to have it both ways.

They made a promise about patents that they have made commitments to
_standards organizations_ about.

The conveniently fail to say anything about de facto standards that were
created by their monopoly power (like FAT and VFAT). Personally, I think those
patents on an ill-gotten standard are probably the most powerful in their
arsenal with respect to Android.

------
MCompeau
If I recall Microsoft is using its patents to collect fees from Android
licensees, yet here they are trying to make an appeal to the hacker ethos that
Google is being anti-competitive. Sounds like they are trying to have things
both ways and manipulate us in the process, we shouldn't stand for it.

~~~
wmf
There is a difference between RAND and non-RAND patents, though. H.264 is an
ISO standard; stuff like slide-to-unlock isn't.

~~~
fpgeek
Apple is slide-to-unlock. Microsoft is FAT and VFAT (and other silly
obviousness that has been documented in the Barnes & Noble case).

------
naner
Microsoft has used patents in an anti-competitive manner for years and have
lobbied in favor of software patent laws.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

------
Zirro
I was confused until I read:

"For a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of
$22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264."

Google (and thus Motorola) wants to increase the use of WebM (instead of
H.264) on the web. I see this as a positive thing, even though I am not sure
how to feel about the methods used here.

Still the message to Microsoft is clear: Implement WebM so that we can have
the same, open-source format across the Internet. Killing H.264 is not the
same as killing video on the web.

~~~
kevingadd
Killing H264 is shortsighted and destructive since at present, there's no way
Apple is ever going to drop H264 for WebM. All it accomplishes is fragmenting
the web further and hurting end-users.

~~~
vibrunazo
Why wouldn't Apple adopt Webm?

~~~
mikeryan
First its an inferior codec (particularly when compared to h.264 main or high
profile)

Second its unclear if WebM is patent encumbered or not. AFAIK its not yet been
tested but if this current battle heats up its likely to come under fire fast.

Third you now have literally millions of mobile devices and other CE devices
with built in H.264 hardware video decoders very few with built in WebM.

A lot of folks haven't cared that H.264 is patent encumbered, they pay the
licensing fees and go on their way with a very tried and true codec. Until
now...

~~~
fpgeek
I suspect (but can't prove) that WebM is more battle-tested than you think.

It has been shipping in Android phones since Gingerbread and it also ships in
Chrome (which comes directly from Google). Those are big, fat juicy targets
for anyone who thinks they have a patent that can take WebM down.

No one has even tried. I wonder why? I suppose they might be laying low to get
more WebM adoption and more potential damages, but how many millions of
infringing instances can you want?

------
forrestthewoods
Wow, way more Microsoft hate here than I expected. We likely all agree on how
terrible software patents are. However there _is_ a difference between
patents. Microsoft's request for FRAND pricing on patents related to mutually
created industry standard protocols does not seem unreasonable to me.

~~~
azakai
I'm curious, why? The patents Microsoft is suing others over (for example,
B&N) are all very general and necessary to implement a modern OS. Just
comparing the patents to the ones Microsoft is crying foul over here, both
sets of patents seem about the same - general, of dubious quality, but
necessary to implement a modern OS.

The fact that some of those patents happened to have a committee around them
earlier (and some deals in the committee regarding future use of the patents),
is a quirk of history. In all fairness, all of these patents should be
licensed under FRAND terms (or better) today, or none.

~~~
tzs
The difference is that with one set of patents, the owner of the patents asked
for them to be included in standards, and promised to license then on fair and
reasonable terms to anyone who wished to implement the standards. That did not
happen with the other set.

~~~
azakai
But regardless of that promise, both sets of patents are necessary today to
implement modern OSes. Why should one of them be usable to extort huge sums
and the other not?

------
bradleyjg
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

------
CountSessine
What Googlerola is doing here really isn't all that far off from what Rambus
did a few years back with JEDEC. That was a good time and a half.

------
nmridul
Why is HN that is against patents in general now seems supportive of Motorola
? Am I missing something or is this patent supposed to be the "good" patent ?

~~~
AutoCorrect
we're supportive in watching MS get what it's dishing out.

------
iterationx
Kill video on the web. Maybe then the artifice of software patents will come
tumbling down.

------
joedev
Hey, at least they said "Please".

