Google: Please Don’t Kill Video on the Web


Posted by Dave Heiner
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Corporate Standards & Antitrust Group, Microsoft

Earlier today, Microsoft filed a formal competition law complaint with the European Commission (EC) against Motorola Mobility and Google. We have taken this step because Motorola is attempting to block sales of Windows PCs, our Xbox game console and other products. Their offense? These products enable people to view videos on the Web and to connect wirelessly to the Internet using industry standards.

You probably take for granted that you can view videos on your smartphone, tablet, PC, or DVD/Blu-ray player and connect to the Internet without being tied to a cable. That works because the industry came together years ago to define common technical standards that every firm can use to build compatible products for video and Wi-Fi. Motorola and all the other firms that contributed to these standards also made a promise to one another: that if they had any patents essential to the standards, they would make their patents available on fair and reasonable terms, and would not use them to block competitors from shipping their products.

Motorola has broken its promise. Motorola is on a path to use standard essential patents to kill video on the Web, and Google as its new owner doesn’t seem to be willing to change course.

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. The only basis for these actions is that these products implement industry standards, on which Motorola claims patents. Yet when the industry adopted these standards, we all were counting on Motorola and every contributor to live up to their promises. Watching video on the Web is one of the primary uses of computers these days. And we’ve all grown accustomed to “anytime, anywhere” access to the Internet, often made possible by the Wi-Fi standard. Imagine what a step back it would be if we could no longer watch videos on our computing devices or connect via Wi-Fi, or if only some products, but not others, had these capabilities. That would defeat the whole purpose of an industry standard.

The European Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice are both focused on this problem. At the urging of competition law officials, Microsoft recently announced that it will not seek injunctions against other firms’ products on the basis of standard essential products (and Microsoft had never done so). Apple and Cisco made similar statements. Unfortunately, Google refused. Not surprisingly, the European Commission does not seem to be satisfied. Joaquin Almunia, the European Union’s Competition Commissioner, said “I can assure you that the Commission will take further action if warranted to ensure that the use of standard essential patents by all players in the sector is fully compliant with EU competition law and with the FRAND commitments given to standard setting organisations.” The Department of Justice issued a similar statement. We know other companies in the industry share our concerns. Last week, Apple filed its own complaint against Motorola with the European Commission.

There is an obvious way out of all this. Motorola should honor its promises, and make its standard essential patents available on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Microsoft is certainly prepared to pay a fair and reasonable price for use of others’ intellectual property. Within just the past few years, Microsoft has entered into more than a thousand patent licenses. We know how it’s done.

Unfortunately, Motorola has refused to make its patents available at anything remotely close to a reasonable price. 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. 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. Microsoft’s patent royalty to this group on that $1,000 laptop?

Two cents.

That’s right. Just 2 cents for use of more than 2,300 patents. (Windows qualifies for a nice volume discount, but no firm 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 mid-level, $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. But the high-end laptop will have a bigger hard drive, more memory, perhaps a titanium case—and Motorola is demanding a hefty royalty on all of this, even though none of these features implements Motorola’s video patents.

Imagine if every firm acted like Motorola. Windows implements more than 60 standards, and a PC supports about 200. If every firm priced its standard essential patents like Motorola, the cost of the patents would be greater than all the other costs combined in making PCs, tablets, smartphones and other devices. Obviously, this would greatly increase the prices of these devices for consumers.

How does Motorola justify this pricing, for so few patents? In German court proceedings earlier this month, Motorola’s economics expert likened Motorola’s patents to bullets: “It only takes one bullet to kill,” he testified. At least we know what this particular lawsuit is trying to accomplish.

Google says that it is just trying to protect manufacturers of Android devices against patent actions by Microsoft and others. But there are big differences between Google’s approach and Microsoft’s. Microsoft is not seeking to block Android manufacturers from shipping products on the basis of standard essential patents. Rather, Microsoft is focused on infringement of patents that it has not contributed to any industry standard. And Microsoft is making its patents—standard essential and otherwise—available to all Android manufacturers on fair and reasonable terms. In fact, more than 70 percent of Android devices are now licensed to use Microsoft’s patent portfolio.

Google has a chance to make a change. For a company so publicly committed to protecting the Internet, one might expect them to join the growing consensus against using standard essential patents to block products. Every firm that is willing to pay a fair royalty ought to be able to implement industry standards. Adherence to this basic point is essential to keeping computer costs down and preserving the Internet as an open, interoperable platform.

Google’s unwillingness so far to make this commitment is very concerning. That’s why you can pretty well count on a chorus from across the industry: “Google: Please don’t kill video on the Web.”

Comments (104)

  1. Anonymous says:

    @Bevan: Microsoft tried to make Windows Media Video a royalty-free standard. They submitted it to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, SMPTE, who standardized it as VC-1. However, it was claimed through the standardization process that there were, actually, patents that were essential to implementing it (many of the same patents that are essential for MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC, aka H.264). MPEG LA formed a new patent pool for VC-1, on similar terms to H.264. See http://www.mpegla.com/…/vc-1-att1.pdf for the list of patents included in the pool.

    These patents cover fundamental ideas like motion prediction, which are used in all video codecs to avoid re-sending a part of the picture that can be derived from another part or from a previous picture.

    There is every chance that some of these patents, or others we don't know about, are actually infringed by both the current WebM implementation, or by any potential independent implementation or modifications to the original. Better the devil you know.

    H.264 is also the broadcast standard codec for HD video in many countries, and those who have only started digital TV services recently, such as Ireland, are even using H.264 for SD services.

    Thankfully there is precedent, at least in the USA. Qualcomm were prevented from enforcing two of their patents against Broadcom's hardware implementation of H.264, because they did not disclose them to the joint ISO/IEC/ITU technical committee that developed the standards. http://www.law.umaryland.edu/…/081201%20Qualcomm.pdf

  2. AC says:

    Clearly the problem lay with software patents. Abolishing them would nip these problems in the bud.

  3. RR says:

    What is missing is how much royalty does Microsoft ask Android manufacturer? Granted for 50 patents Motorola out 2300 patents the price seems high.  Would this argument be applicable for royalty MS is asking from Android manufacturer? In B&N vs Microsoft case, Microsoft has asserted 5/6 patents and asking like $11-12/device. Now Microsoft has not published the royalty has negotiated with Android manufacturer and would it be right to say "Microsoft: Please Don't kill smartphone"  The definition of fair and reasonable is subjective.  Without Microsoft publishing the negotiated royalty and number of patents used during negotiation (i.e., infringed patents) the above argument of Microsoft being reasonable seems very hollow.

  4. AC says:

    The crow calling the kettle black.

    For years Microsoft tried to force its own, proprietary data formats onto the market, denying virtually everyone to create or edit documents in those format. Now that has failed an Microsoft is crying foul play because it has to accomodate with other players.

    Now, I'm not a fan of patents or proprietary data formats. But I'm not above 'Schadenfreude' when I see a unrepentend monopolist suffer because of aforementioned concepts.

    Huh, Microsoft. Betcha would've supported Ogg or WebM if you'd known that before.

  5. JB says:

    What I could imagine: Google is also just searching for a way to push WebM!

  6. Mike K says:

    The fact is that if Microsoft were doing this to someone, say… the Android OS, they wouldn't be crying foul. Look at the suit with Barnes and Noble as a great example.

  7. Tobias Franz says:

    And HOW much do you ask in for royalties for an Android Phone? If I'm not mistaken, the percentage is actually MUCH HIGHER than what Motorola is asking for (when you don't factor in phone subsidizing).

    You are just as guilty as Motorola in this situation. Stop playing the victim.

  8. MT says:

    All these google apologists make me laugh, trotting out the same misinformed anti-Microsoft rubbish at every opportunity. Microsofts patent assertions are fair and reasonable, MMI's are not, thats why they are being investigated for abuse and microsoft isn't.. It doesn't get much more straight forwards than that…

  9. A says:

    Stop charging for Android patent use and I'm sure things will resolve themselves!

  10. An Observer says:

    Leaving comments open on this post is just inviting abuse.

  11. agtrier says:

    … or is it just that Google/Motorola wants more money from you for using these patents? It's not that Microsoft would give away their patents for free…

    In any case, we should abolish patentability for these kind of things, that would be in the interest of everybody.

  12. sgislain says:

    Microsoft: please stop making more money from Android than from Windows phones… At least now Microsoft might stop vampirizing Android…

  13. guest says:

    Isn't it true that Motorola offered Microsoft a license to its patents and Microsoft refused to even discuss taking a license?  What, then, should a company in Motorola's situation do?  Say, "OK, Microsoft.  Continue to infringe, we don't mind," and then walk away, tail between legs?  Please.  Microsoft hasn't changed since the 1990's.  They're still playing the same old game.  Destroy competition – not by making better products – but by subverting the system.

  14. Koby says:

    Sorry Microsoft, I don't feel sorry for you. You're suing Android manufacturers over patents, and now you're crying foul when someone turns around and does the same to you? Sorry but look for pity elsewhere. Maybe if you hadn't gone and sued every Android manufacturer then Motorola Mobility (now owned by Google) wouldn't be suing everyone over the patents they now own. Remember, what goes around comes around.

    If anything does come out this, I hope it's an overhaul of the patent system because lawsuits like the ones everyone is filing over patents is only hindering innovation.

  15. sam says:

    Boo Microsoft. After starting the war by charging way-high royalties for Android, you are complaining about unfair patent royalties? You need to clean up your own house first.

  16. BS says:

    These companies are acting like a bunch of toddlers. This is why the world's economy seems to have Schizophrenia, businesses can not compete solely on their ability to make a valuable product anymore and have to spend half of their cash flow on lawyers defending and attacking each other in court which has no value to anything or anyone except the lawyers.

  17. Raul says:

    This is why no one takes Microsoft seriously anymore. Microsoft wants to charge outrageous royalties, but doesn't like when they are given a taste of their own medicine. Microsoft will just never gain any respect. Ever.

  18. Jeff Pan says:

    Microsoft stop try to fool the public!

    The percentage you charge for Android devices is as high as the one Motorola is asking from you. Where was all this logic when you asked for Android royalties?

    So please stop whining, pay the royalties and be a good boy!

  19. kwanbis says:

    Come on Microsoft. You are leeching money from android manufacturers and then you cry foul for this? Wow. You really are something.

  20. Android Goodfella says:

    So the Bully is getting Bullied and cries about it. Sounds about right.

    See Barnes and Nobles and the ridiculous patents you're suing them for you Patent Trolls.

    I'll never buy anything Microsoft again.

  21. webM says:

    Yet another reason not to use patent encumbered formats, use open formats like Ogg Theora, Ogg Vorbis, and WebM.

  22. Ebot says:

    Of course you don't want to block sales of Android devices, you make too much money off them.

  23. Senthilkumar Peelikkampatti says:

    I think patent issues comes back and biting you. Ask barnes and noble and other android manufacturer about another face of MS. Google, after all, behind webm — which is free and open and infact provided plugin for IE. I think only way to stop MS is to play by it's own rule. So MS stop suing  other companies with your SW patents, they will stop suing you. First reason for buying moto is it's patents and you forced them to buy and they are using it against you. I am sure Moto is not going against Linux or any good citizens.

  24. F. B. says:

    You are really funny. MS whining about someone playing the software patent game. Best joke this week.

    Thanks!

  25. Rochard says:

    Google should make a video of the Microsoft extortionists trying to shake down every Android OEM into paying for frivolous prior art laden MS patents.  

    You are nothing buy hypocrites.  Cheering the broken patent system when it suits you and crying when you're getting beaten by your own game.

  26. AC says:

    Motorola has to pay patent protection from Microsoft on things like Android, so they have to raise prices for everything.

    Sorry Microsoft, but you get what you dish out.

  27. Charbax says:

    Microsoft and Apple want to sue companies using Linux/Android on mobile/tablets/desktops? Are you joking me? Microsoft/Apple think they can try to block Linux sales? Give us a break! This is a joke! Microsoft must immediately cancel all lawsuits and give up their bogus PR marketing camapaign about Microsoft needing to be paid bogus royalties for Android, give it up! Microsoft does not own Linux! Microsoft does not put a price on free software! Once Microsoft/Apple stop suing Android startups and giant Android companies, then at that point it'd make sense for Android companies, Google included, but there are also 1000 other Android companies, they can combined stop their counter-attacks. You can opt for the nuclear option and you can opt for trying your bogus marketing campaigns about FRAND patents, or you can simply give up and let Linux/Android be free if it wants to be free.

  28. Craig says:

    Microsoft: Please don't kill smartphones!

    (With your BS patent claims against Android)

    You guys are hypocrites and a*holes.

  29. jerry wendel says:

    hummmm…

    cobrar pelo Android pode, mas cobrar DELES por uma tecnologia que não é deles não pode né?!

    ….

    Microsot desesperada, pois nunca criou nem inventou nada, vivi de meter medo e cometer crimes.

    ….

    =======================================================

    hummmm …

    can charge for Android, but charge THEM for a technology that is not theirs can not huh?

    ….

    Microsot desperate, because they never create or invent anything, I lived a scary and committing crimes.

  30. Emily C. says:

    Microsoft, you snivelling swine, try and keep your back straight for once. You claimed "licensing is the solution" in

    blogs.technet.com/…/android-patent-infringement-licensing-is-the-solution.aspx

    because, as Mr. Guiterez says,

    "By bringing this case, we are protecting our investments on behalf of our customers, partners and shareholders – just as other companies do."

    So, just pay your fees, "just as other companies do."

  31. jerry wendel says:

    Uma vez um sábio Juiz do trabalho falou para um empresário que não aceitava pagar o valor devido ao ex-funcionário:

    Sr. Manolo, Quem não pode pagar seus funcionários e encargos, faz como ele, trabalha pros outros!

    ================================================================

    Once a wise judge of the work spoke to a businessman who refused to pay the amount due the former employee:

    Mr. Manolo, who can not pay its employees and charges, as he does, it works for others!

  32. Anonymouse says:

    I can't even form a sentence to explain how stupid this is. Google is not "killing" video.

    Google is "killing" microsoft.

    And good riddance.

  33. Zuon Yang says:

    "a chorus from across the industry: Google: Please don’t kill video on the Web"

    FRAND is a Free software killer. How do you expect free software distributors to pay royalties?

    Accusing Google of killing the video on the web is an hypocrisy because there is no standard for the video on the web.

    The patent bullshit made the video codec optional in the HTML5 spec, thanks to the H264 patent trolls.

    Please Kill H264!

  34. Yo Ma says:

    "Microsoft on the Issues" ?!!?

    Riiiiggghhhht.  Not a home for Mr Objectivity

  35. Ysleiro says:

    Man so much IGNORANCE in this comment section.

    Some of you are claiming that Motorola's behavior is fine because MS charges an equal amount for their patents to Android OEMs. What makes you think MS submitted their patents to a standard under FRAND? GENIUSES if you want to charge 2.5% for something don't submit it to a standards board and don't put it under FRAND.

    There are over 2000 patents in H264 if all the patent owners (including Apple and MS) started asking for similar pricing to Motorola's what good would come of this? Why do you guys feel Motorola is entitled to 2.5% over all the other patent owners?

    Why do I feel MS is entitled to whatever they charge OEMs? because their patents aren't part of some standard and are not licensed under FRAND. SIMPLE.

  36. Anthony says:

    I am shocked at how ignorant the comments here are. If you understand anything about patent law then you know the difference between essential and non-essential patents. Attempting to extort companies for FRAND licensed patents is a pathetic desperation tactic that will land Google in serious trouble with the EU. It's akin to a terrorist group sending a suicide bomber into a country to kill innocent civilians in response to a targeted military strike. Similarly Google has no weapons in the legal sense and is resorting to desperation tactics in response to legitimate patent suits. I suppose if you are the type of individual who rationalizes terrorist attacks on civilians then you see nothing wrong with this.

  37. Me says:

    Tell us again what are the royalties you're charging for Android phones.

  38. WA says:

    "Don't Be Evil"

  39. Nargg says:

    Software patents are evil.  By law you can't patent an algorythm.  Isn't that what software is, an algorythm?

  40. sully says:

    I think all you ass clowns should just stop using lawsuits as a competitive business strategy and try and come out with a product that stands on it's own.

    You fail to mention anything about the BILLIONS you make off of Android yourselves and since your little lawsuit may effect stock prices it does not effect your per device royalties.

    How about one of you take a stand and lead the patent office in changing or abolishing software patents. Software and its "functions" are UN-PATENTABLE by definition, any programmer can go and make a screen that unlocks a device by sliding something, or use pinch-to-zoom on a touch screen. The code that creates these functions however is likely copy write-able. That way the only way you win is if the source code matches.  How much taxpayer money is wasted on these things? How much are you spending in legal fees on this crap? Maybe spend some time and money making your products better.  

  41. Art Williams says:

    Well that's the "pot calling the kettle black."  How does it feel M$?

  42. George says:

    H.264 needs to die anyway. Microsoft and Apple should embrace the open source alternative WebM. It's the best for the Internet going forward.

  43. Bevan says:

    Yet Microsoft has no issues with charge large amounts for patents on Android. And many more Androids are sold then Windows!

    Doesn't seem to be so keen on giving "bulk" discounts when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Microsoft doesn't even have to licence H264, there are many other codecs available include those made by Microsoft and Google.

  44. A says:

    too bad i can't post it on G+….

  45. Hmmm says:

    Since Microsoft charges $12-15 per Android device for 5 patents, this seems actually quite reasonable. 50 patents really should cost $120-150 right?

  46. GrungyPants says:

    /don't read article:

      "DOWN WITH MICROSOFT !!!!" (derp)

  47. barom says:

    Don't be a *** Microsoft, you started the game so in urban slang "don't hate the playa hate the game".

  48. DavidT says:

    Down with the patents up with open standards

    enough said

  49. Dont be Evil says:

    What ever happened to Dont be Evil. You've changed google.

  50. AK says:

    @Google: let them burn!

  51. Jason says:

    You mean, for once, some one is charging MICROSOFT high royalties for standards licenses???  😉

  52. BarriedaleNick says:

    And how much does MS make from every single Android phone?

  53. JD says:

    Sounds like you guys have a bigger problem with software patents in general. May you should work at getting rid of those. Also, don't you guys get paid every time an Android device is sold?

  54. anomuumi says:

    fast math here from B&N case. 5 patents 11$, so 11$/5 = 2.2$ per patent. Motorola should ask same price from Microsoft, that is 50*2.2 = 110$. And Microsoft is complaining that they have to pay when they get 505 discount?

  55. Chris Cross says:

    "Google has a chance to make a change. For a company so publicly committed to protecting the Internet, one might expect them to join the growing consensus against using standard essential patents to block products. Every firm that is willing to pay a fair royalty ought to be able to implement industry standards. Adherence to this basic point is essential to keeping computer costs down and preserving the Internet as an open, interoperable platform."

    Why do you say the opposite here: "blogs.technet.com/…/our-licensing-deal-with-samsung-how-ip-drives-innovation-and-collaboration.aspx"

    "We recognize that some businesses and commentators – Google chief among them – have complained about the potential impact of patents on Android and software innovation. To them, we say this: look at today’s announcement. If industry leaders such as Samsung and HTC can enter into these agreements, doesn’t this provide a clear path forward?"

    And the latter agreement is on an NDA. I cannot keep from wonder why you at Microsoft feels that Motorola cannot license it's patents the same "discriminatory" way as you yourselves does?

  56. You started it... says:

    So first you sue everybody for infringements, then suddenly when you're at the wrong end of the stick you call for mommy?

    I'm losing all the respect for Microsoft I've been gaining back.  

    MICROSOFT: YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

  57. Coto says:

    what? you (Microsoft) have done the same all the time!!!! you're the hell micro$osft

  58. The last programmer on Earth says:

    Dave, you are a hypocrite. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite.

  59. Dardie says:

    @Mike Dimmick: You said 'There is every chance that some of these patents, or others we don't know about, are actually infringed by both the current WebM implementation, or by any potential independent implementation or modifications to the original. Better the devil you know.'

    Given that google has already done an extensive patent search on webM AND given the mpeg-LA has not filed suit against them, its unlikely that 'some of these patents' apply. And the situation for 'others we don't know about' is exactly the same for h264. So your whole argument is FUD.

  60. DB says:

    As far I know you guys win more money from royalties from Android manufacturers than from Windows Phone, right?

  61. hey2 says:

    Wow, these comments… Pure infantilism.

  62. alex says:

    Well maybe Microsoft is paying a % for the patents fees charged to Android? And Google needs to push WebM

  63. SC says:

    Microsoft is in campaign to attack Google. I strongly think they are loosing clients.

  64. Justhan says:

    Oh wait… but you guys don't do the same with Android phones?

  65. Ben says:

    lol Google think they are being smart, but they are just slowing digging their own antitrust grave.

  66. Matej K. says:

    It's incredibly sad how many clues people are commenting here without having slightest idea what all this is about and what standard essential patents are.

  67. AC didn't RTFA says:

    Apparently you didn't notice that there are hardware patents that Moto is suing about.

  68. ryan says:

    Microsoft, you created this software patent mess.  You dug your grave now get it in it.

    If instead of pushing proprietary codecs and protocols you used open and technologies not wrapped up in software patents there wouldn't be a problem here.

    MS you are irrelevant in new technology.

  69. Do evil Google says:

    Come on Google, destroy video on Internet! This is too funny! Google is starting show its true colors. Next, Google will charge you for using Andriod then for Searching.

    For those that think Google can do no wrong, just wait, they are just starting…

  70. me2 says:

    Just drop the M$ Android/Linux/FAT taxes and I am sure Motorola will drop the price.

    WebM is the future of video, h264 is just the present.

  71. K.C says:

    Kill Google, break them up and refuse the Motorola deal, Dont't allow the merger.

    Google is treading on thin ice and can very well lose big, and just as well they have gotten to pompous for their own good.

  72. cuz84d says:

    Everyone hates Flash.. HTML5 down with H.264,

    You know, if you didn't want AntiTrust, you should have let google buy the nortel patents instead… now your complaining.

  73. microsoft says:

    Don't kill the smartphone with royalty patents.. talk about hypocritical and not allowing open source of these so called patents.

  74. Steve says:

    Yeah, patents suck (Innovation, money and life).

    So are you going to stop suing Google now over Android?

  75. Steve says:

    Ok, so h264 is patent encumbered, how about using webm, ogg vorbis, etc.?

  76. Duncan Bayne says:

    Serious question, here: if I want to write a FOSS implementation of H.264, how can I (realistically) do that?  H.264 already kills Video on the Web, at least in jurisdictions that respect software patents.

  77. nick says:

    This is hilarious. Payback's a *** isn't it.

  78. Common sense says:

    Are you guys kidding?  Ignore that the complaint comes from Microsoft.  The source doesn't matter.  Who do you think is going to way for these extra costs, Microsoft?  Guess again, they'll just pass these costs on to the consumer.  The question is, who are you rooting for?  Sounds like Motorolla's, I mean Google's shareholders.

    Google is clearly in the wrong, they are required by law to license these FRAND patents for a reasonable fee, not blackmail.

    Think people,

  79. james says:

    Let me sum up this article in one word:

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!

  80. florian says:

    You're bleeding heart hypocrites.

    You and your best pal Apple are suing everybody doing Android to kingdom come even while yourself extort sizable royalty payments of Android sellers swinging your patent club.

    You also have no commitment of your own whatsoever to make video on the web work, as IE is still not supporting WebM or Ogg/Theora. While Google Chrome supports all three (albeit due to your tardiness H.264 is scheduled to be removed, why should Google help you after all?)

    And while you kick Google and their partners to the curb, you're complaining about being unfairly treated? Really, Microsoft, that's low, even for you.

    So while I don't condone this childish behavior of swinging patent clubs all around by no involved party, maybe you should have thought about that before you started going nuclear with patents.

    And please stop your whining when the gloves come off after your blatant misbehavior.

  81. Eventide says:

    The European Court of Justice will kick the *** out of Google. They are not stupid.

    Ironically it seems like Google is evil now.

  82. Unfair Competition? says:

    "LoL" That's the only thing you can say to that article. Microsoft and Apple always go for their patents and try to kill other companies and other philosophies… don't remember the Linux thing the last years?

    Sorry, you guys should fall ashame.

    First, trying to kill other companies… now crying in front of an EU comission because Google's magic stick has grown too much. What about the anti advertising? Isn't the googlighting advert you submitted on youtube unfair competition?

    … think about it.

  83. Dennis Forbes says:

    "The source doesn't matter.  Who do you think is going to pay for these extra costs? Microsoft?  Guess again, they'll just pass these costs on to the consumer.  The question is, who are you rooting for?"

    Without declaring right or wrong, it should be obvious that Motorola *** Google has no intention of ever actually collecting on these licensing demands. This is nothing more than a negotiating exercise to get Microsoft to flog off about Android. It is incredibly hard to feel sorry for Microsoft — just look at the ridiculous extortion of Barnes and Noble (a cost born by consumers).

  84. such a silly argument you made says:

    google, motorola are purposefully making this , so that everybody should start using webm freely, not the h.264. I thank google and god for making webm possible.  Microsoft and Apple are still trying to push patent encumbered h.264 , which needs a death knell.

  85. the truth says:

    hurray for free webm (made free by google)

    down with h.264 (down of h.264 made possible by the help of google)

    M$ plz do not be cry-baby, the time has come for free standards like webm

    thanks google thanks google thanks google for webm

    This article was a peice of ***, without even any mention of H.264 vs webm debate in which context this decision by google was made.

  86. Benjamin McLean says:

    I am skeptical about the argument of this post. Microsoft doesn't exactly have a spotless track record on the issue. "Industry standards" have, in the past, been used as a code word for, "Proprietary Microsoft standards, for which interoperability by competitors is prohibited or purposefully made impractical." In that context, "We know how it’s done." sounds especially creepy.

  87. alex says:

    ms go make software, stop trolling with patents

  88. Bjorn P says:

    There's this old story about a boy named Peter who cried "Wolf!" once too many. Clearly, here we have a different story. This time, it's the wolf complaining about Peter yelling.

    Patents are evil. MS and Motorola are both patent abusers of the worst kind. Why not have'em settle it in a tank duel on a remote island somewhere, while the rest of us leave software patents in the smelly landfills of bad idea-history?

  89. toyotabedzrock says:

    Google bought a company for over $120Million and gave away the video encoding tech. It is very dubious to suggest they would use Motorola patents to kill video on the web.

  90. flamencoguy says:

    They are not trying to block sales of any of your products. They are merely asking that you pay fairly to use their patents. Just like Android product manufacturers have to pay to use your patents.

    Fair is fair.

  91. flamencoguy says:

    This is misleading article designed to gain sympathy and support of the general population. But they see through the misinformation.

    Firstly MMI is only targeting MS which means the OS and not other hardware components. Otherwise MMI would have been targeting the likes of HP, Dell, Intel etc.  The OEM Windows OS may only represent 5% to 10% of the cost of of the $1000 laptop. So the royalty may amount to only $1.12 or $2.25 of the cost of the laptop example you provided.

    This is the kind of information you should be providing and not try to exaggerate the real amount.

    My next laptop will be running Android so it will be at least 5% to 10% cheaper.

  92. HarryMonmouth says:

    I am not a big fan of Microsoft or Apple.  In fact I am kind of disappointed with Google and android.  Having said that I do approve of what Google is trying to do with Android and I like the entire philosophy and hope it does well despite the fact that I have been mostly happier with products of the old behemoths.  Despite this though it does seem that Motorola do not really have any leverage here.  2.25% of eventual sales price is a ludicrous royalty for what is supposed to be an industry standard patent.  I do quite like to see Microsoft squirm but I find it hard to believe that Motorola actually mean this seriously.  The claim must be simply to make a statement about the state of the patent system because otherwise it is only recklessly bringing the attention of the anti-competition authorities for no reason.

  93. Alatar says:

    Hell yeah, patent extortionnist Microsoft complaining about software patents.

    Well, Miscrosoft, the answer is right here in front of you : instead of lobbying for more software patents, lobby against them. You help create that Far West world, you enjoy shooting at exeryone with your guns, but the first time a bullet hits you, you cry fool.

  94. Dylan Smith says:

    This is a bit rich from Microsoft which has become a toll collector for Android devices. Perhaps Microsoft ought to remove the plank from their eye before removing a spec of dust from Google's.

    The real solution is the abolition of software patents. They don't promote innovation, they only enrich lawyers as we see in this case.

  95. kick770 says:

    i want free antina t.v. back, and all of it's wave links, with c.b. radio.

  96. Get rid of software patents says:

    How about working to get rid of all software patents and making all software unpatentable?

    This situation right there is the reason for doing that.

    It would be awesome if Google persisted to finally achieve this goal.

  97. Anonymous says:

    M$ hates when others play against it with the rules it has established long ago… It's the name of the M$ game….

  98. J says:

    what you're calling a standard is not a standard. h264 is not a standard and there are many other codecs available on a royalty free bassis, like Google's WebM or Xiph.org Theora.

    Looks like M$ lobbying against a free and open standard for video streaming is turning against self. Maybe it'll serve as good advice next time…

  99. astro help centre says:

    google is the best search engine on web.

  100. alexbmx says:

    Microsoft. Please don't kill DR-DOS

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Xenix

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Quattro Pro

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Java (J++ Case)

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Netscape

    Microsoft. Please don't kill HR 1555

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Stac

    Microsoft. Please don't kill my Privacy (Passport, TPA/Palladium, DRM and Thrusting Computing iniciatives)

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Firefox 1.x

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Free TV

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Linux (Get The Facts and Linux Violates our Patents campaigns)

    Microsoft. Please don't hate OsX (Mac and PC campaign)

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Red Hat

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Youtube

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Ogg Vorbis

    Microsoft. Please don't kill Android

  101. John3058 says:

    Thanks for the update.There is a scope to reach out for the best with the power of information in our hands that i got from your post.

    <a href="http://www.anglesunlimited.co.in">production services company</a>

  102. Omid says:

    dont kill my video

  103. spixleatedlifeform says:

    Too bad microsift was nowhere to be heard when its darling MPEG-LA was destructively and illegally manipulating the share prices of On2 Twechnologies' stock–for more than half a decade!

    SPLF