Motorola ordered to pay $14 million to Microsoft in patent trial decision

The long legal battle between Microsoft and Motorola Mobility over payment to use some of Motorola's patents has once again taken a turn in Microsoft's favor. This week, a jury in Seattle ruled that Motorola asked Microsoft to pay too much for the use of its patents that are covered by what are known as reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.

Reuters reports that the jury has now ordered Motorola to pay $14 million to Microsoft, which includes $3 million in legal fees. However, the amount was about half of what Microsoft originally wanted from Motorola.

Despite their requested award being cut by 50 percent, Microsoft said they were pleased with the jury's decision, with a spokesperson saying, "This is a landmark win for all who want products that are affordable and work well together." Motorola, which is now owned by Google, said they will file an appeal.

This is the second time Microsoft has won in a patent trial in the U.S. against Motorola this year. In April, a judge ruled that Microsoft only had to pay $1.8 million to Motorola to use some of its patents related to Wi-Fi and H.264 video standards. Motorola was asking for as much as $4 billion from Microsoft for the use of those same patents.

Source: Reuters
Gavel image via Shutterstock

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia's German Twitter page goes after both Samsung and "KitKat"

Next Story

Report: Mapping software a key sticking point in Microsoft-Nokia deal

33 Comments

View more comments

Crimson Rain said,
I know but they tried to exploit MS and extract $4B per year. It is only reasonable they get a taste of their own medicine.

Just because Moto was asking for 4b, doesn't mean they would get anything near close to that in penalties for legal/court costs and time wasted.

It was such a small amount because it's a case of bad journalism. This case had NOTHING to do with patents or patent fees. It was a simple "breach of contract" trial.

The BIG patent trial will come next year when Google/Motorola is sued for breach of patent simultaneously by Microsoft, Nokia (?), Apple and several others. Google are guilty as sin and I seriously doubt Android will survive.

techbeck said,

Just because Moto was asking for 4b, doesn't mean they would get anything near close to that in penalties for legal/court costs and time wasted.


Say:
1. I tried to break your arm intentionally (but failed).
2. I broke your arm intentionally.

Should I just get a slap on the wrist for #1 while getting jail+fine for #2?

S3P€hR said,

yes but not for google. google has to learn a lesson blocking youtube access to WP users

Youtube is a Google service (in the same way, that Azure is a MS service), what MS did it was to hack youtube and used illegally the Youtube service.

If MS wants Youtube on WP then MS should pays to Google. It is not about patent, it is about service.

Brony said,

Youtube is a Google service (in the same way, that Azure is a MS service), what MS did it was to hack youtube and used illegally the Youtube service.

If MS wants Youtube on WP then MS should pays to Google. It is not about patent, it is about service.


I don't think you know what have happened. Google forced MS to use HTML5 api instead of native api. everybody knows HTML5 sucks in every smartphone, its slow and not performant thats why Apple and google themselves use native api, Youtube app that ms wrote was working perfect that brought google's envy, yes it didn't support ads which they added later on, google could work with MS to fix the issue but they didn't. instead they just blocked it. I am sure google can afford sending a developer work with Microsoft on that issue but I think they don't want WP users to have youtube app. now are you google's lawyer here?

I know the difference between patent and service, but Microsoft should use every possible mean to attack google where they did hurt windows ecosystem users including me.

S3P€hR said,

yes but not for google. google has to learn a lesson blocking youtube access to WP users

What does the YouTube issue have to do with patents?

No, they paid $12 for breach of contract, not patent fees. Microsoft is currently receiving about $4 billion a year in Android patent fees. So far Google hasn't won a single case they paid $12 billion for.

fuzi0719 said,
Microsoft has to do something to make money, they sure don't make anything selling Windows phones.

Yea, they only made a profit of what, a bit under 27 billion last year? Yea, I can see how this 14 million will "save" them.

fuzi0719 said,
Microsoft has to do something to make money, they sure don't make anything selling Windows phones.

I think you have it the wrong way round. In fact, Microsoft are making money from Android phones and Windows phones. Google lost the $12 billion they paid for Motorola plus they're going to have to shell out billions next year for patent breaches.

Max Norris said,

Yea, they only made a profit of what, a bit under 27 billion last year? Yea, I can see how this 14 million will "save" them.
How much was from Windows Phones? You really think the measly number of Windows Phones sold garners them any profit? They're losing money on Windows Phones. They make more money from Android than they do their own phones.

Major_Plonquer said,

I think you have it the wrong way round. In fact, Microsoft are making money from Android phones and Windows phones.

You're just proving my argument. MS doesn't make anything from Windows Phones, it is a loss. They make more from Android than they do their own phones.

fuzi0719 said,
How much was from Windows Phones? You really think the measly number of Windows Phones sold garners them any profit? They're losing money on Windows Phones. They make more money from Android than they do their own phones.

No argument there, but "do something to make money"? You're trying to make it sound like they're hurting for money and $14 mil is a significant gain for them... it's a drop in the bucket. They're making money hand over fist in the bigger scheme of things, in the billions. This isn't the first time a company has taken a loss in a division and instead focused on long-term.

Max Norris said,

No argument there, but "do something to make money"?
Why do you completely ignore the CONTEXT that the rest of my statement adds? Taken in CONTEXT, my statement is very clear I was referring to the phones. It seems you simply wanted to complain, regardless that your complaint was not founded.

fuzi0719 said,
It seems you simply wanted to complain, regardless that your complaint was not founded.

Ah no, I wasn't the one complaining lol.. I know you were just focusing on phones instead of the company as a whole to make it an easier target, but you apparently missed my last comment about a division taking a loss, long term focus and all that.

Very large companies have no choice but to do both. Litigation is just another form of competition, sadly.

Commenting is disabled on this article.