Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th Nov 2013 10:04 UTC, submitted by mbpark
Microsoft

Microsoft is generating $2 billion per year in revenue from Android patent royalties, says Nomura analyst Rick Sherlund in a new note on the company.

He estimates that the Android revenue has a 95% margin, so it's pretty much all profit.

This money, says Sherlund, helps Microsoft hide the fact that its mobile and Xbox groups are burning serious cash.

Microsoft has not written a single line of Android code, yet rakes in the profits through scummy software patents. Crime does pay.

Thread beginning with comment 576324
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Alexandre
Member since:
2008-10-30

Microsoft spends billions in R&D, they are among the biggest spenders worldwide - all type of activities included.
If their patents and R&D work is valid they should be paid for it, it's just natural.
I've said it before, MS must be receiving $2 to $3 for each android being sold, way below some reports that go to the insanity value of over $10!!
While $2B sounds like a lot of money, $2 or $3 for each device don't seem to be braking the bank.

Reply Score: -6

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Microsoft spends billions in R&D, they are among the biggest spenders worldwide - all type of activities included.
If their patents and R&D work is valid they should be paid for it, it's just natural.
I've said it before, MS must be receiving $2 to $3 for each android being sold, way below some reports that go to the insanity value of over $10!!
While $2B sounds like a lot of money, $2 or $3 for each device don't seem to be braking the bank.

So you spend a lot of time on making the perfect burger for your restaurant. You patent it. I live on the other side of the planet and have never heard of your recipe or restaurant. I make a burger that I like for my restaurant and it is very similar to yours. Now I have to pay you 50 cent per burger I sell.

Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please tell me.

Reply Parent Score: 13

Alexandre Member since:
2008-10-30

In reply to:
"So you spend a lot of time on making the perfect burger for your restaurant. You patent it. I live on the other side of the planet and have never heard of your recipe or restaurant. I make a burger that I like for my restaurant and it is very similar to yours. Now I have to pay you 50 cent per burger I sell.
"


Do you think that would be a valid patent?
For me it seems an obvious invention.

Edited 2013-11-07 12:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

I live on the other side of the planet and have never heard of your recipe or restaurant.


Yeah, because Google never heard of Microsoft and their patents when implementing Android.

There is for sure a lot to dislike about the current patent system, but it is amazing how much BS we can see coming from techies on forums on this subject.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Stephen! Member since:
2007-11-24

Microsoft spends billions in R&D


Any yet it doesn't seem to have helped Windows Phone gain significant market share

Reply Parent Score: 11

dukes Member since:
2005-07-06

"Microsoft spends billions in R&D, they are among the biggest spenders worldwide - all type of activities included.
If their patents and R&D work is valid they should be paid for it, it's just natural.
I've said it before, MS must be receiving $2 to $3 for each android being sold, way below some reports that go to the insanity value of over $10!!
While $2B sounds like a lot of money, $2 or $3 for each device don't seem to be braking the bank.

So you spend a lot of time on making the perfect burger for your restaurant. You patent it. I live on the other side of the planet and have never heard of your recipe or restaurant. I make a burger that I like for my restaurant and it is very similar to yours. Now I have to pay you 50 cent per burger I sell.

Am I understanding you correctly? If not, please tell me.
"

Doesn't matter that [you] live on the other side of the planet. [We] both sell burgers where [you] live and where *I* live. So, yes [you] would have to pay 50c per burger. Not [my] fault that [you] didn't perform due diligence of what patents were in place before selling that burger.

Of course, you could just not pay or not make that particular burger and sell a different one, and then finally patent it to protect yourself so that this doesn't happen again.

Reply Parent Score: 1

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Yes, they spend billions finding trivial ideas and patenting them, after they spent billions in bribe (ahem, lobby) money putting this fucked up system in place. It's only fair that they earn it back.

Reply Parent Score: 10

dragos.pop Member since:
2010-01-08

Microsoft spends billions in R&D, they are among the biggest spenders worldwide - all type of activities included.

O course they do, by definition most of the money spent by a software company goes into R&D. And nobody contests they are one of the biggest in the world.

If their patents and R&D work is valid they should be paid for it, it's just natural.

Old debate over software patents and copyright. Is not that you are totally wrong, bu right now most patents are not used by others because they looked at them and saw: oh, what a nice idea, I would invest X$ if it wasn't for for this patent that I can buy.

No, usually it is like this:
- a company creates something and runs into a problem, it finds a simple and beautiful solution,
- then another company comes and say: you know, we had a similar problem, found a similar solution, made it general, wrote a patent, and wait to get money for this.

I've said it before, MS must be receiving $2 to $3 for each android being sold, way below some reports that go to the insanity value of over $10!!
While $2B sounds like a lot of money, $2 or $3 for each device don't seem to be braking the bank.


Compare to what ARM gives ad how much money it asks, this is a lot.
It is hard to know the exact sum, but it is less than 5% of the CPU cost according to:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-...
And that is for a complete CPU R&D

Reply Parent Score: 2

majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22


No, usually it is like this:
- a company creates something and runs into a problem, it finds a simple and beautiful solution,
- then another company comes and say: you know, we had a similar problem, found a similar solution, made it general, wrote a patent, and wait to get money for this.


"then another company comes" .. "we had" : you are mixing present and past tense which is quite clever but also (willingly?) confusing.

The patent holder must first find the simple and beautiful solution and patent it, otherwise the parent is invalid due to prior art.

That being said, I still don't understand the fundamental difference between hardware and software patents which would makes hardware patents acceptable and not software patents. Can anybody quickly explain me?

Reply Parent Score: 3