Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Motorola Refused Ban For Windows, Xbox 360

By - Source: Computerworld | B 37 comments

Ruling applies in the United States and Germany.

A U.S. judge has ruled that Google-owned Motorola will not be granted an injunction against Microsoft products that it claims violate its H.264 patents.

The ruling ensures that Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Windows, among other products belonging to the software giant, won't be banned from sale in the United States. The ruling also prevents Motorola from banning Microsoft products in Germany.

Motorola has argued that Microsoft utilized the patents in question illegally. The firm requested the judge apply a sales injunction against the latter's products until it licenses the patents in question. Microsoft, meanwhile, has stressed that it would be willing to pay a royalty, but not on Motorola's demands. Motorola had requested that Redmond pay $4 billion for the use of its technology via a 2.25 percent royalty rate based on product pricing.

The judge is expected to announce a final decision on the case in the spring. When he does, he could set the terms of licensing and what a reasonable royalty rate may be.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback          

Discuss
Display all 37 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    sulanis , December 3, 2012 6:11 PM
    oh look, another patent war!
  • 19 Hide
    esrever , December 3, 2012 6:19 PM
    Pointless Lawsuits Everywhere...
  • 15 Hide
    igot1forya , December 3, 2012 6:20 PM
    Remember back when companies used to innovate rather than litigate? No, me neither :( 
Other Comments
  • 20 Hide
    sulanis , December 3, 2012 6:11 PM
    oh look, another patent war!
  • 19 Hide
    esrever , December 3, 2012 6:19 PM
    Pointless Lawsuits Everywhere...
  • 6 Hide
    Anonymous , December 3, 2012 6:19 PM
    and of course, a US court getting paid to pass more crappy rulings.

    color me not shocked.

  • 15 Hide
    igot1forya , December 3, 2012 6:20 PM
    Remember back when companies used to innovate rather than litigate? No, me neither :( 
  • -6 Hide
    SAL-e , December 3, 2012 6:27 PM
    Hum... US district judge in Seattle (Microsoft's back yard) issues ruling that blocks legal process in Germany. Do you think that will end up good for Microsoft in Germany and EU courts?
  • 9 Hide
    ddpruitt , December 3, 2012 6:27 PM
    igot1foryaRemember back when companies used to innovate rather than litigate? No, me neither


    Sadly I'm old enough to remember when innovation was the key to getting ahead (Windows 1.0 anyone?).
  • 5 Hide
    Dangi , December 3, 2012 6:32 PM
    How can an U.S. judge ban a ruling in Germany ??? That's to decide by some german judge
  • 0 Hide
    scannall , December 3, 2012 6:36 PM
    ddpruittSadly I'm old enough to remember when innovation was the key to getting ahead (Windows 1.0 anyone?).


    I think you forgot the /s there. Windows 1.0 was dreadful. Nothing more than a DOS overlay, that really didn't work very well. Windows was pretty much a joke until Win 95. And wasn't actually good until Win 98 SE. Which they trashed a little while later with Windows ME. *shudder*
  • 5 Hide
    Max Collodi , December 3, 2012 6:48 PM
    DangiHow can an U.S. judge ban a ruling in Germany ??? That's to decide by some german judge

    It's likely there is some sort of patent agreement between the U.S. and Germany. I don't know this for a fact, however.
  • 3 Hide
    SAL-e , December 3, 2012 6:59 PM
    Max CollodiIt's likely there is some sort of patent agreement between the U.S. and Germany. I don't know this for a fact, however.

    There is none. The judge is over-extending its jurisdiction by liberally interpreting contract laws in USA. At this point Motorola can only wait the process to complete and build its appeal case. No matter what this judge rules there is going to be an appeal in to the higher court. This case will not be over any time soon. If you interested about the case and want to read FUD free information about the case go to and avoid paid shills like (Anti)FOSSpatents.
  • -3 Hide
    deepblue08 , December 3, 2012 7:00 PM
    scannallI think you forgot the /s there. Windows 1.0 was dreadful. Nothing more than a DOS overlay, that really didn't work very well. Windows was pretty much a joke until Win 95. And wasn't actually good until Win 98 SE. Which they trashed a little while later with Windows ME. *shudder*


    It may be because the company is stationed in the US?
  • 0 Hide
    SAL-e , December 3, 2012 7:04 PM
    SAL-e If you interested about the case and want to read FUD free information about the case go to

    Groklaw.

    PS. I wonder why Tom's hardware removed the link?!
  • 0 Hide
    mousseng , December 3, 2012 7:22 PM
    SAL-eGroklaw.PS. I wonder why Tom's hardware removed the link?!

    Links posted from the comments section of articles automatically get removed - view the comments on the forum to post links (or edit them back in).
  • 3 Hide
    Gundam288 , December 3, 2012 7:29 PM
    So does this mean that Motorola Mobility solely owns the H.264 patent(s) or does Motorola Solutions own/co-own them?

    This case is kinda confusing since it was started before Motorola split up. So, as to who owns what pattens and some sites are stating it is Motorola Solutions while others are stating it is Motorola Mobility.
  • 2 Hide
    Miharu , December 3, 2012 7:49 PM
    Quote:
    So does this mean that Motorola Mobility solely owns the H.264 patent(s) or does Motorola Solutions own/co-own them?

    This case is kinda confusing since it was started before Motorola split up. So, as to who owns what pattens and some sites are stating it is Motorola Solutions while others are stating it is Motorola Mobility.


    I totally agree. It's even more confusing thinking Windows Media part (Windows 7, Windows 8 with Media Center and Xbox 360) already paid for h.264 patients. There are also a cross licensing between Apple and Microsoft. So I'm not sure which patents Motorola try to use... but seem useless to me and surely not for that amount of money...
  • 0 Hide
    internetlad , December 3, 2012 8:07 PM
    THIS MEDIA CONSOLE IS TOO MUCH LIKE THE DAMN PHONES WE MAKE

    uh. . .

    GET THEM OFF THE MARKET NOW!

    no.
  • 1 Hide
    SAL-e , December 3, 2012 8:13 PM
    MiharuI totally agree. It's even more confusing thinking Windows Media part (Windows 7, Windows 8 with Media Center and Xbox 360) already paid for h.264 patients. There are also a cross licensing between Apple and Microsoft. So I'm not sure which patents Motorola try to use... but seem useless to me and surely not for that amount of money...

    As far I know all patents are own by Motorola Mobility (now owned by Google). h.264 is very complex standard and is covered by 100+ patents own by many companies including Microsoft. Microsoft is member of MPEG (technical) group and Motorola as well that proposed the h.264 standard. There is other group MPEG LA. It is patent pool that license the patents that cover h.264. Microsoft is member of this group and also buys license from them. How the royalty are split between the members remains secret. Motorola didn't join MPEG LA and several other companies refused to join the patent pool. In this case implementers of h.264 should negotiate patent deal in private with Motorola (now Motorola Mobility whole subsidiary of Google). Until now Motorola Mobility didn't sue anyone for implementing h.264. The only reason why MS was sued is because MS sued Motorola Mobility over Android. Motorola won in Germany, but MS is trying to delay the fall back from German court decision. They come up with new legal theory and now they trying to prove it. Apple had similar case in Wisconsin, but their case got dismissed. Basically it is chess game between big boys. At the end they will split the spoils of the patent game and you the consumer will pay the bill.
  • 2 Hide
    ELMO_2006 , December 3, 2012 8:13 PM
    Sounds like *protectionism* to me even though Google own Motorola.

    Quote:
    Microsoft, meanwhile, has stressed that it would be willing to pay a royalty, but not on Motorola's demands.


    Does this not yell out, *HEY I STOLE AND NOW I'M CAUGHT BUT WILLING TO PAY*, however the judge will not ban the products that have been listed.

    Meanwhile back in the cave, Apple and Samsung have sales ban on each others devices???

    Give me a break.
  • 0 Hide
    DRosencraft , December 3, 2012 8:32 PM
    SAL-eThere is none. The judge is over-extending its jurisdiction by liberally interpreting contract laws in USA. At this point Motorola can only wait the process to complete and build its appeal case. No matter what this judge rules there is going to be an appeal in to the higher court. This case will not be over any time soon. If you interested about the case and want to read FUD free information about the case go to and avoid paid shills like (Anti)FOSSpatents.


    Partly true. Usually legal jurisdiction is based on the defendant. Motorola is suing Microsoft. Microsoft's home jurisdiction is the U.S. As such, US law is what would normally apply in most cases against general business practices for MSFT (which a patent case is). Now, if Motorola's complaint was against something unique and specific to Germany, Germany would likely have the ability to ban MSFT products or what not specifically in Germany. Otherwise, Germany and the US would require negotiations for meeting each other's concerns/interpretation of applicable international law.
  • 0 Hide
    ericburnby , December 3, 2012 8:34 PM
    The rest of the owners of H.264 patents license the entire pool of 2,000 or so patents for about $0.50 per device. Motorola wanted $8-15 per device from MS for their handful of less than 50 patents. The sheer arrogance of Motorola to think their few patents are worth so much more than the other 2,000.

    And people are defending this company?

    And to whoever mentioned Groklaw - they are exactly the same as Foss except they're biased to the other side. If you take their word on anything legal you have no business making fun of people who quote Florian.
Display more comments