As part of the ongoing Motorola Mobility lawsuit against Microsoft over alleged patent infringements, Microsoft has rejected Motorola's settlement offer, which included taking royalties of 2.25 percent on each Xbox 360 console sold.
Google-owned Motorola Mobility had claimed that Microsoft's Xbox 360 infringes on five of its patents, including video decoding and wi-fi technology from the company. A judge agreed that Microsoft has infringed on four of these patents, meaning that if the commission agrees with the judge when it meets in August, Motorola Mobility will have the chance to block imports of Xbox 360 S hardware from entering the U.S.
Microsoft has also filed its own action against Motorola, in which it alleges that Motorola is charging "excessive and discriminatory" royalties for patents.
In an email to Reuters, Microsoft's deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez revealed that Motorola had offered Microsoft 33 cents for each Android phone that utilizes ActiveSync technology, while asking in return for 50 cents per copy of the Windows operating system sold, and royalty fees of 2.25 percent on each Xbox 360 sold.
Microsoft rejected the offer, with Gutierrez explaining, "While we welcome any good faith settlement effort, it's hard to apply that label to a demand that Microsoft pay royalties to Google far in excess of market rates, that refuses to license all the Microsoft patents infringed by Motorola, and that is promptly leaked to the press."
Earlier this month, numerous developers and manufacturers weighed in on the lawsuit, claiming that it would cause commercial harm to their individual companies.
Has there been any release on what other companies are paying to license those patents? I feel like that's the piece of the puzzle that's been missing from almost every article I've read, and it's a fairly decisive piece of evidence.
If a company sues yours over patent infringement and attempts to shut down all imports into a specific country, and you retaliate by doing almost exactly what was attempted to be done to you... is that evil?
Granted they made a bad offer, but I feel it's standard bargaining practice to open with an unbalanced offer and expect to meet in the middle.
@Tom: Actually in a business environment it's better to go into a negotiation with a list of your needs, compile yours and your negotiating partners needs into a combined list, then sort it out based on facts. Not that that's how it's always done, but it's certainly more productive than straw market bartering.
Sorry Microsoft, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Granted they made a bad offer, but I feel it's standard bargaining practice to open with an unbalanced offer and expect to meet in the middle.
http://www.amazon.com/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement-Without/dp /0140157352
That's a pretty sweet book on the subject.