It's simpler...

Posted Oct 4, 2010 18:01 UTC (Mon) by hozelda (guest, #19341)
In reply to: It's simpler... by Lefty
Parent article: Microsoft sues Motorola, citing Android patent infringement (ars technica)

>> As Florian has correctly pointed out, there's no need for Motorola to "acknowledge validness [sic] of these patents": in every single instance where Microsoft has brought them out, the parties have settled. This suggests pretty strongly that there is, indeed, something to them. They've never been shown to be invalid.

I don't work for Microsoft in a high enough position (or in any position) to know if your statement is likely true or not, but people settle to avoid very costly litigation, thinking there aren't alternatives. It's also possible the terms benefited the other party monetarily or perhaps the other party was convinced to adopt an interest in future royalties from those or other patents.

There truly are quite a few possibilities, and for all we know, the terms of the offer got better and better the more the sued entity called the bluff. Microsoft has at least given away their software in cases where they thought they would lose the whole deal to Linux, for example. The fact is that creating the belief that their patents are legit is very valuable to Microsoft so naturally they might consider paying money in the short-term to help promote that view.

It's simpler...

Posted Oct 5, 2010 1:50 UTC (Tue) by Lefty (guest, #51528) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't work for Microsoft in a high enough position (or in any position) to know if your statement is likely true or not...

If you did, you wouldn't tell me outside of a licensing discussion conducted under a pretty stiff non-disclosure agreement.

...for all we know, the terms of the offer got better and better the more the sued entity called the bluff...

This seems a little unlikely. Why would anyone ever stop "calling the bluff" under those circumstances?

Microsoft has at least given away their software in cases where they thought they would lose the whole deal to Linux, for example.

Which provides exactly zero support for the notion that they'd give way a license on these patents.

The patents are public, and readable by anyone who cares to, including patent attorneys who are not only extremely skilled in the law, but who also well understand the technology. So, somehow, no one in Tom Tom's legal department, and no one in Motorola's legal department, and in fact, no one in the entire legal world has really been able to convince themselves that there are flaws in these patents worth bringing into a courtroom.

In spite of this, you continue to be certainand the basis for that certainty is very unclearthat they're somehow lurking in there.

It's simpler...

Posted Oct 5, 2010 3:23 UTC (Tue) by hozelda (guest, #19341) [Link]

>> This seems a little unlikely. Why would anyone ever stop "calling the bluff" under those circumstances?

Because in some cases it might not be a bluff (I'm thinking poker). The contexts would be different across parties. As an example related to Windows being given cheaply, this would depend on the size of the account and on how likely Microsoft thinks they might stick with Linux and influence others.

Also, each different party is likely unaware of what the earlier party got.

[So, I didn't intend to suggest a generalization, but was suggesting that in some cases it might be happening that those that "call the bluff" somewhat get more than others that don't.]

>> Which provides exactly zero support for the notion that they'd give way a license on these patents.

No, because the point is that the end game is not just that one party. There are consequences for gaining or losing an account. This is particularly important for those that deal heavily in monopolies and/or rely on certain psychological tools working for them.

>> So, somehow, no one in Tom Tom's legal department, and no one in Motorola's legal department, and in fact, no one in the entire legal world has really been able to convince themselves that there are flaws in these patents worth bringing into a courtroom.

Again, not necessarily at all.

Microsoft picks and chooses the licensee (they haven't created problems for everyone). This is where the bluff comes in. In some cases, Microsoft will not budge, but in others they will because there could be costs to their overall end game.

Eg, having a streak of "winning" negotiations is very valuable for lowering future resistance; hence, to preserve that advantage, they might settle with someone under terms where all references to the deal would be in terms laid out by Microsoft, and Microsoft might even pay the other party for this privilege (of course, this would be a case of a bluff gone badly, since Microsoft can generally just ignore someone if they think that party might conceivably end up creating problems for Microsoft).

All of these are realistic business possibilities.

Another possibility is that Microsoft has offered to share future royalty payments.

Another possibility is that Microsoft argues that striking any sort of eventual deal can help the other company by trying to argue that supporting software patents would help that party down the line.

These are all realistic business possibilities. Microsoft might try these or others on a case by case basis. Why not? Is business not their game? Are they likely not very clever and resourceful?