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 576332
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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?


You cannot patent math. 1+1=2 cannot be patented. Software is math. Ergo, software cannot be patented.

Reply Parent Score: 0