Google Withdraws Two Patent Claims Against Microsoft

News
By published

Google drops patents previously filed by subsidiary Motorola Mobility.

Google has withdrawn two patent claims against Microsoft stemming from its subsidiary, Motorola Mobility.

The motion ends the ITC patent battle between the two technology giants, which initially began in November, 2010. Motorola had sued Microsoft over wireless and video coding patents used in the Xbox 360 and its smartphones.

Microsoft, however, said the smartphone manufacturer was unfairly seeking excessive royalty payments for the H.264 video patents. Motorola demanded between $100 million and $125 million on an annual basis for the usage of the patents in question, while the former said it'd settle for $502,000 per year.

A U.S. judge had previously ruled that Motorola will not be granted an injunction against Microsoft products including the Xbox 360 and Windows within the United States and Germany.

"Motorola intends to enforce its rights for past damages in the District Court lawsuits," said the motion filed today by Google, which bought Motorola Mobility during the May of 2012 for $12.5 billion. Although two patents were withdrawn, a third (U.S. Patent No. 6,069,896) that pertains to a wireless peer-to-peer network remains in the complaint.

"We're pleased that Google has finally withdrawn these claims for exclusion orders against Microsoft, and hope that it will now withdraw similar claims pending in other jurisdictions as required by the FTC Consent Order," said David Howard, Microsoft's deputy general counsel.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

9 Comments Comment from the forums
  • abbadon_34
    if H264 royalties are the problem, use x264. I don't understand the problem. If microsoft too lazy to switch from h264 to x264, or is google just pissed it got duped into buying a codec with a better, free alternative?
    Reply
  • joytech22
    abbadon_34if H264 royalties are the problem, use x264. I don't understand the problem. If microsoft too lazy to switch from h264 to x264, or is google just pissed it got duped into buying a codec with a better, free alternative?
    What are you talking about?
    1. It isn't that simple
    2. Google isn't "pissed" about anything, they are just cleaning up the mess Motorola was making before Google obtained them.
    Reply
  • Hmm...

    10 PRINT "MIKROSOFT THIEF, ID HAVE TO HAVE MY HANDS ALL OVER AGAIN"
    20 GOTO 10
    END
    Reply
  • Soda-88
    abbadon_34if H264 royalties are the problem, use x264. I don't understand the problem. If microsoft too lazy to switch from h264 to x264, or is google just pissed it got duped into buying a codec with a better, free alternative?H.264 is format standard, x264 is H.264 encoder. Apples and oranges.
    Reply
  • Shin-san
    They should go through the MPEG LA for the licensing, both Google and Microsoft. There's a patent pool for that
    Reply
  • alextheblue
    Shin-sanThey should go through the MPEG LA for the licensing, both Google and Microsoft. There's a patent pool for thatThe problem is that Motorola owns at least one standards-essential H.264 patent, and they're not playing ball. MPEG LA agreements don't protect you if they're missing an essential patent owned by a hostile company (Motorola/Google). Motorola was involved in H.264's creation, and during the development they agreed (made commitments to the big standards bodies) to license their H.264 patent(s) under FRAND terms. Since Motorola Mobility fell on hard times, however, they have basically abandoned that path and have started demanding huge and ridiculous licensing fees that are not even CLOSE to being in line with FRAND.

    What's really horrendously ironic is that Google was anti-H.264 before they bought Motorola's mobile arm. They pushed their own WebM and even Ogg standards, and preached free and open - until they got their hands on Motorola Mobility. Now they're continuing down the H.264 war path that Motorola started. I thought H.264 patent mess was bad for the internet, Google? Oh wait, that was before you owned any vital H.264 patents!

    I'm hoping that H.265 will include stronger legally binding FRAND agreements, because as nice and free as WebM and Vorbis are, they're simply inferior in actual use as compression technologies.
    Reply
  • falchard
    I think google realized that if it tried to sue Microsoft over H.264 patents they would be under breach of contract and would have to pay Microsoft more then they are demanding. The H.264 standard has multiple patent holders from multiple companies including Microsoft. I would imagine a contract needs to be formed between these companies before H.264 could become a standard or else you are left with a legal nightmare and an unusable codec.
    Reply
  • p05esto
    I'm sure MS just opened up their binder of patents and said "either drop your claims or we'll unleash hell upon you". Certainly MS owns some serious patents out there, they just don't go around suing everyone over them. I respect that MS tries to work out licensing agreements that are fair and don't hinder progress. Companies like Apple, Google and others seems to rather sue.
    Reply
  • gravewax
    abbadon_34if H264 royalties are the problem, use x264. I don't understand the problem. If microsoft too lazy to switch from h264 to x264, or is google just pissed it got duped into buying a codec with a better, free alternative?Perhaps you should do some basic research before commenting. x264 is free software library to ENCODE into h264 not for playback.
    Reply