"Although the numbers are not public, reports say HTC pays Microsoft $5-$10 for every Android phone it sells, and Samsung pays even more." is worrysome enough to me.
Really? "reports say"?
None of this information is available to me as yet ....... if you have something more solid than that I would love to read it
..... and no I do not believe unsubstantiated "reports" which most often are simply speculation on behalf of someone with an axe to grind .....
An axe to grind ......
Wake up mate, this monster M$ is real.
There are numerous articles on line that point to the same direction. Android deployers are forced to pay the dark Side.
That is wrong but ......
Much more can be found on this on line.
Of course YOU can say these are all vague reports or estimates but I (for one) take this serious.
If you can point to anything in those links that is not an estimate or other speculative assessment I would be grateful.
Microsoft Demands Samsung Pay $15 Royalties For Every Android Phone It Sells
Microsoft gets $5 for every HTC phone running Android, according to Citi analyst Walter Pritchard
Samsung agrees to pay Microsoft an undisclosed royalty fee for every Android device it sells to avoid being sued by Microsoft.
Microsoft is announcing today the biggest Android-related patent deal to date, signing a broad cross-licensing agreement with Samsung.
According to the Trefis team Microsoft is receiving patent licensing fees from Samsung to the tune of $12-$13 per Android handset. HTC is said to have a slightly kinder deal, at $10 per Android device.
All those figures are put out there as fact ..... yet not even ONE of them can be confirmed.
All of them are estimates, alleged demands, 'according to' someone else estimating etc etc and so it goes on and on.
One quoting another who quotes a third who estimates or guesses or just plain makes up figures.
You need to read a little more critically before accepting those figures.
Wake up mate, this monster M$ is real.
I made no comment on MS; neither did I comment on Google, in this thread.
Nor did I comment on Apple!
In truth I see no real difference between any of them.
They are corporations with only one purpose ...... and they do not care how they fleece the consumer.
None of which makes estimates at figures in a settlement other than what they are ....... guesses!
You must be a M$ lawyer!
I don´t accept these figures as absolutely true. I just see thick smoke and so there is a fire....
I know the goals of companies like M$ and Apple and their like. Making as much as possible money with as less as possible efforts. Clearly the patent game is easier then real innovation and fair concurrence, even if it all is against the interest of the masses. Therefore these excesses should be contained asap by throwing out the obviously misused patent system imho. Concurrence is good, bullying is not good. After all the consumer pays the (extra) price. Is that fair?
One wonders as to why the same consumers don´t wake up and "vote with their money" as that is where it is all about.
A properly functioning and administered patent system can help innovation and encourage investment in new areas.
In such a case cross licencing of patents is a desirable result as it means the 'new' developments are made available to purchasers (consumers), from different sources and so they have choice.
Where cross patenting is not possible then of course some monetary consideration must be paid instead.
None of the above seems in any way 'wrong' to me.
Of course when the protection systems (patents, physical designs etc) are not properly functioning then abuses will occur.
The answer would reasonably seem to be to 'fix' the systems rather than eliminate them.
It would also appear from what I read, that the US systems are more broken than most others.
Just because one country has a broken system does not mean the system cannot work ...... and work for the benefit of all - developers, innovators, producers and consumers.
In essence if you use a patented 'thing' (under a properly functioning system) the patent holder is recompensed.
So if hardware manufacturers want to use some patented device in their phones they must surely pay for the privilege - by cross licencing or money.
I see nothing much wrong with that.
Recent court cases around such things indicate strongly that the 'protection systems' are NOT functioning properly, IMO, at least in some jurisdictions.
The answer appears to be to fix the systems.