ie8 fix

Microsoft files antitrust patent complaint in EU against Motorola

By | February 22, 2012, 5:42am PST

Summary: In the latest round in the never-ending patent wars, Microsoft has filed an antitrust complaint in the EU over Motorola Mobility’s video-patent-licensing terms.

On the heels of Apple filing an antitrust patent complaint against Mototrola Mobility, Microsoft has done the same in the European Union.

On February 22, Microsoft officials said they’d filed a formal complaint over Motorola Mobility’s — and parent Google’s — policies around making standard, essential patents available on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Microsoft specifically is targeting the amount Motorola Mobility’s is seeking Microsoft to pay for licensing video patents.

Here’s the back story: In November 2011, Microsoft sued Motorola again over wireless and video coding patents that are used by the Xbox and smartphones. In the latter case, Microsoft claimed that Motorola is charging excessive royalties for its patents. Motorola retaliated with its own countersuit shortly thereafter, claiming infringement of 16 of its patents by Microsoft’s PC and server software, Windows Mobile and Xbox products.

From a blog post noting the EU antitrust filing from Microsoft’s Vice President & Deputy General Counsel David Heiner:

“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.”

Heiner said in the post that for a $1,000 laptop, Motorola is seeking Microsoft pay $22.50 in royalties for licensing 50 patents around the H.264 video standard. (Motorola is seeking significantly higher royalties for more expensive laptops, he said.) He contrasted that with the considerably lower royalties that Microsoft and other companies are charging for their own H.264 patents on FRAND terms.

Microsoft recently publicized its stance that it won’t seek injunctions against other firms’ products on the basis of standard essential products.

Heiner also used the ocassion of the new antitrust suit filing to take another Android-patent-related swipe at Google, which recently obtained antitrust clearance to buy Motorola Mobility. From Heiner’s post:

“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.”

Update: A Google spokesperson gave Geekwire the following statement about Microsoft’s legal action today: “We haven’t seen Microsoft’s complaint, but it’s consistent with the way they use the regulatory process to attack competitors. It’s particularly ironic, given their track record in this area and collaboration with patent trolls.”

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

63
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

googorola
somereader 23rd Feb
Well "googorola" has at least a sense of humor. Remember the Webm/H.264 discussions. Here only a few titles out of the many on this site.
- By dropping H.264, is Google avoiding a trap or walking into one?
- Google Chrome to drop H.264 support; roadblock to HTML5?
- Microsoft adds H.264 support to Google Chrome
- Google prepares to ruin Chrome browser
- A closer look at the costs (and fine print) of H.264 licenses
- Google's WebM video standard - Help or hindrance?
and especially:
- First legal shots fired at Google's VP8 codec
And now we hear some screaming about killing video playing. Should it perhaps not sound more like killing a cash-cow form of video playing?
Motorola Mobility accused for antitrust behavior. But this could well end up in blocking the big company's behind H.264 in making it in to a industry standard. A cash collecting industry standard. Collecting from us, the users.
Suggest a few solutions.
MS removes H.264 and supports WebM and it's development.
A nice deal, the group can use Motorola's patents and Google can use the same number of H.264 patents from the group.
Google and the group will not attack each other in court about patents.
OK, this is all very premature, no free HTML 5 yet, but still quite funny.
googorola. patent troll 2.0
@neonspark

So MS happily charge android oems extortionate amounts, but don't want to pay up for licences themselves? Stay classy M$.
0 Votes
+ -
You should try Staying classy yourself
William Farrel Updated - 22nd Feb
@Sultansulan

I see it's not working.
@Sultansulan
Just wondering...are MS's patents part of a communciations standard or other infrastrucucture.
@Sultansulan
Also wondering if MS patent agreement are a set fee or a percentage. Isn't the problem that a if you put in a component that costs 20 cents into a device that is say a $3,000,000 mainframe why should you pay 2.25% x $3,000,000 = $67,000
0 Votes
+ -
googorola
somereader 23rd Feb
Well "googorola" has at least a sense of humor. Remember the Webm/H.264 discussions. Here only a few titles out of the many on this site.
- By dropping H.264, is Google avoiding a trap or walking into one?
- Google Chrome to drop H.264 support; roadblock to HTML5?
- Microsoft adds H.264 support to Google Chrome
- Google prepares to ruin Chrome browser
- A closer look at the costs (and fine print) of H.264 licenses
- Google's WebM video standard - Help or hindrance?
and especially:
- First legal shots fired at Google's VP8 codec
And now we hear some screaming about killing video playing. Should it perhaps not sound more like killing a cash-cow form of video playing?
Motorola Mobility accused for antitrust behavior. But this could well end up in blocking the big company's behind H.264 in making it in to a industry standard. A cash collecting industry standard. Collecting from us, the users.
Suggest a few solutions.
MS removes H.264 and supports WebM and it's development.
A nice deal, the group can use Motorola's patents and Google can use the same number of H.264 patents from the group.
Google and the group will not attack each other in court about patents.
OK, this is all very premature, no free HTML 5 yet, but still quite funny.
The EU will largely ignore the complaint because its from Microsoft. EU has a known history of doing this.
??????????????? My friends told me about---onenightcupid.c/0/m---. They told me it is the best place to seek casual fun and no strings attached relationship. I have tried. It is fantastic! Hundreds of thousands sexy women and handsome guys are active there. Come in and give it a shot, you will find someone you like there. Have fun! happy
0 Votes
+ -
this is outrageous!
The Linux Geek Updated - 22nd Feb
M$ is trying to appropriate or steal Motorola's innovations. The people should stand up and demand the end of this mockery of justice.
M$ must pay the piper for using others ideas!
@The Linux Geek

"Pay the pepper?"
@msalzberg
fixed it. that does not change the message intent.
@The Linux Geek

They want to but if every other licensee is paying at a maximum $0.20 why should MS pay $22.50?
@the.nameless.drifter
because M$ is greedy and does not play nice with FOSS.
@the.nameless.drifter : Why bother. the Geek has a one track mind. WAnts everything for free but scr?w anyone who is against Linux.
@The Linux Geek

No, nor does it change the fact that you don't seem to understand the concept of Standards Essential Patents or of Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory agreements.
@msalzberg
FRAND applies only to non aggressors.
@The Linux Geek

FRAND only applies to non-aggressors? Really? Can you cite the law that states that?
@msalzberg: Neither does MS, that charges unreasonable amounts for supporting filenames longer than 8:3 in FAT file systems...
@Natanael_L

If Microsoft has a patent that isn't part of a FRAND agreement, they can charge whatever they want for royalties for the use of their intellectual property. That's the reward for innovation.
@The Linux Geek by your definition of greedy, then Motorola is beyond greedy, exceedingly so.
@grayknight
then how comes that M$ and apple get the big $$$ in the bank and not motorola.
@The Linux Geek You ARE right, this is outrageous that Motorola is infringing upon a patent of Microsoft's - hey it's not like they have not done so before with another company's IP...

Motorola is trying to appropriate or steal Microsoft's innovations. The people should stand up and demand the end of this mockery of justice!

Mototola must pay the piper for using other's ideas!

There, I fixed it for you. Now go get those fries I ordered!
@The Linux Geek : Ya. Figures. Biased again. You think Microsoft is always guilty? Earthquake in New Zealand a year ago - blame Microsoft. Russian satellite fell from space - blame Microsoft. New england lost the Super Bowl - blame Microsoft. So why did Linux distros get sued for using FAT? AS DOS was around before Linux, I don't think the Linux distro jointly created FAT.
@Gisabun Now wait a minute... Microsoft couldn't possibly have committed all of those crimes - Apple did some of that ****. Yeah I read your post and the first thing that popped into my head was the Chris Rock song "No Sex (in the Champagne Room)"... LOL
Got to love it. Apple files suit for something similar, and they are branded as evil. Microsoft does it and it is to protect consumers?
@Joel-r
At least MS licenses out their patents to the competition. Apple just tries to destroy everyone. Which tactic appears more evil to you?
@kris_stapley@...

Look up IEEE1394. Look up H.264. Look up WebKit.
@msalzberg
WebKit is a browser, not a standard. And Apple has to share it because it is a fork of the KHTML browser, which is GNU licensed. FireWire (IEEE 1394) is a connectivity standard, and so is useless unless devices manufacturers make things that connect. Thus, it was licensed as a standard. H.264 is much more MS' baby than it is Apple's.

It is true that Apple occasionally gives technologies back or plays nice with standards bodies. It is also true that Apple is on record saying they prefer to use patents to protect their innovations than as a source of license revenue. From Jobs to Schmidt: "I???m willing to go thermonuclear war on this. I don???t want your money. If you offer me $5 billion, I won???t want it. I???ve got plenty of money. I want you to stop using our ideas in Android, that???s all I want."
@kris_stapley@... It's all evil to me. The only ones that pay for this stupid behavior are you and I.
@jdakula

OK, I agree that WebKit shouldn't be on that list.

However, IEEE1394 is a standard, as you admit, so why is it different from other standards?

Since Apple is a patent holder of part of the H.264, I don't see why Microsoft's contributions, in this case, are more relevant. Holding a standards essential patent is holding a standards essential patent.
@msalzberg: Firewire? Direct Memory Access (DMA) = security hole. That's only been patched fairly recently, before that it was like a giant hole in the wall into the computer.

H.264 - MPEG LA has their "nice tactics" around the patents for that.

WebKit? Came from KHTML that came from KDE (Linux desktop enviroment project). Also, there's plenty of contributers other than Apple - such as Google.
@Natanael_L

I don't understand your point. Is IEEE1394 a standard or not? Is Apple a patent holder of part or all of IEEE1394?

Same for H.264. Is it a standard? Is Apple a patent holder of part of H.264?

Your attempt at diversion is noted.
@kris_stapley@ there is no law requiring a company to license out its patents. Microsoft is in the Market to gain revenue through licenses, while Apple makes money selling actual products. Microsoft sells licenses for Windows, Apple sells iPhones. If Microsoft sold more actual products, they would have a different view on licenses.
@Joel-r It's the SAME thing - other companies are suing to defend infringement upon their IP that Motorola is infringing upon... it makes no difference if the infringed patent is owned by Apple or Microsoft Motorola was wrong in infringing upon it.
@Pete "athynz" Athens finally, someone gets it. If Apple is evil, so isn???t Microsoft, Motorola, and Google. If any of the three isn???t evil, then neither is Apple.
Myself, don't care because it will not change a dang thing in my life or put one red cent in my pocket. People that obcess over what these multinational corps do to each other seriously need a hobby.
@NoAxToGrind It won't affect you until your company gets sued for some obscure patent that it didn't know it was violating.
@K B

Nope, I /we don't use others IP. But that of course has NOTHING to do with the multinationals playing silly games instead of competing. Trust this, it won't matter a bit who wins or loses, it won't change a thing about patent law.
@NoAxToGrind
AAaaaamen!!!
google and now Motorola are behaving like mean thugs and will obviously be disciplined by the government . It???s a matter of time. Many people has an illusion that google is some big tech company. But the reality is that most of their products are pirated and their business apps are a joke. What have they really innovated??? Android is a stolen product and that joker Schmidt stole apple plans when he was in bed with apple board.
0 Votes
+ -
Really?
rhonin 22nd Feb
@owllnet

Give it a rest.
This is another case of A doesn't want to pay B... waits and then files a lawsuit or four.
Meanwhile A, B, C and all the others are playing pinochle with their patents trying to either gain a favorable position, have this mess declared a draw, leverage another income stream, or put the competition out of business.

@NoAxToGrind is right, won't put any cash in my pocket.

plain
@owllnet
Google's innovation is their business model. They are a Web site that acts like television. That is, give away the goods and charge the advertisers on the back end.

It is true that Google are not particularly innovative from a technology standpoint. But the way they do business is incredibly disruptive to established industry players. Their advantage over television is that they are also a spyware company, so that they can sell very high quality information about their users to their customers. And that is very hard to compete with. Only Facebook seems to have a chance to equal them in this respect, and my guess is Google will be the eventual "victor."

Thus, I do not think it is fair to say they are not innovators. Google most certainly are innovators. We can argue about the moral "merits" of their model, but it is truly transformative in the tech industry.
@owllnet: Uhm... Gmail was built by themselves, the have built their own search engine, they made Wave (underrated, and the technology still lives), the Android platform has plenty of nice concepts and API:s (Intents are extremely flexible), etc...

If you think Android is a clone of iOS and that Google never does anything new, I have a couple of surprises for you - there's not a single unique concept in the iPhone. Multitouch? Grids of icons? Speech recognition? Gestures? It's all been done before. All Apple is good at is repackaging and polishing existing ideas.
@Natanael_L

Speaking of polish, here is the `polish` that Apople uses by the semi load:

http://www.guffsturdpolish.com/default.php
technology into standards. It's up to the standards bodies to either reject patented technology and find alternnatives or to get the holders to relinquish the patents or grant free license when they submit it to the standard. For motorola to be doing this with parts of h264 now is complete bs and they should be slapped silly by both the US and EU
0 Votes
+ -
Yep
Robert Hahn 22nd Feb
@Johnny Vegas
It had to happen sooner or later: I agree with you on something. Back when ZDNet's bloggers were cheering the arrival of H.264, which would kill the Evil Flash with an Open Standard, I kept asking why they insisted on calling patented technology an "open standard," when it was obvious all along that just this sort of thing was going to happen.

I hope this is the last time a standards body gets snookered with this "FRAND" nonsense. You either renounce all royalties on your patented technology, or it has to stay out of the standard. Go use it in your own proprietary goods if you want, but don't try to lure people into using it and then jump out of the bushes with a bunch of lawyers. That sucks.
@Johnny Vegas

Who's going to invent the standards technology for free?
@msalzberg
google does it.
@Linux Geek

You really believe that? You are seriously naive.

By the way, what standards essential patents does Google hold? I believe they're paying $12.5B just to get some.
@The Linux Geek

msalzberg asked Who's going to invent the standards technology for free?

Your reply was:

google does it.

GOOGLE? WTH did Google invent? Search Engines? Nope! Yahoo, Ask.com, and several others were around before Google. IM? Nope. AOL was first. Let's see how about free webmail? Buzzzzz, wrong! Again Yahoo and also Hotmail. Okay, okay Mobile OS? Wait, wrong again! There was Palm OS, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and iOS. Say what about social networking - sure with G+... again, no. MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter were first.

So what did Google actually invent?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix