Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2012 11:46 UTC
Legal "Motorola Mobility has been granted an injunction against the distribution of key Microsoft products in Germany. The sales ban covers the Xbox 360 games console, Windows 7 system software, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. It follows a ruling that Microsoft had infringed two patents necessary to offer H.264 video coding and playback." But... But... The MPEG-LA, Apple, and Microsoft have been lying to us all this time about the safety of using H264 over WebM, with their supporters blindly parroting the party line? This surprises me greatly and deeply, and I dare say I have not seen this coming at all. Not at all. No sir. Not at all.
Thread beginning with comment 516703
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by MOS6510
by DavidCollins on Wed 2nd May 2012 12:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Member since:

While it's a relatively new phrase and may not have a standard definition, many people (and Wikipedia) hold that a company that's a "patent troll" doesn't make anything or use patents for purposes other than taking legal action.
Motorola make a lot of stuff: phones, devices, etc, and most likely use the H264 codec in them. Hence, they are making use of their patents.

By that definition, they are not patent trolls.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 2nd May 2012 12:38 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:

It's a definition I agree with, but Thom has his own very broad definition making almost anybody a patent troll. That's why I asked why Motorola Mobility isn't included on his list.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by bowkota on Wed 2nd May 2012 12:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
bowkota Member since:

Well considering the Motorola Mobility merger with Google, I think many people will refrain from naming them a patent troll for their own personal reasons. The fact that they seem to be attacking companies left and right using FRAND patents doesn't seem to have any effect on them.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Tractor on Wed 2nd May 2012 13:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Tractor Member since:

The difference is that this Motorola Litigation against Microsoft is an obvious retaliation.

And this is very different from attacking first.
Calling Motorola an "evil patent troll" on the ground that they strike back at Microsoft is like calling someone an "horrible violent man" on the ground that he is defending himself against an armed robbery.

There are situations in which it is completely wrong to say that both sides are "equivalent".
When there is a "wrongdoer" and a "defender", it is right to cheer up the defender, even if it has to use the same methods as the wrongdoer to be effective, and most of all, to teach him a lesson.

Don't forget that Motorola/Google has not been attacking about "anyone", just the major patent trolls which have attacked the Android Ecosystem lately. Which is "defense".

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Alfman on Wed 2nd May 2012 14:09 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Alfman Member since:


It sounds like that definition was arrived at by manufacturers who want to distance themselves from other patent holders who's primary business model is suing real manufacturers for royalties. And that's fair enough, clearly one business model is much worse than the other.

However it's kind of absurd to say the bad behavior of patent trolling can be negated just because of how the patents may be used internally. The same behavior deserves to be called the same thing regardless of who does it, so both deserve the patent troll label.

Maybe we need two sub-classifications: Sue-only patent trolls versus sue-plus patent trolls?

Edited 2012-05-02 14:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3