Microsoft to receive royalties for Samsung's Android smartphones, tablets
Microsoft on Wednesday announced it has entered a cross-licensing agreement with Samsung, in which Microsoft will receive royalties for smartphones and tablets sold by Samsung running the Google Android mobile operating system.
The patent licensing agreement will provide "broad coverage for each company's products," Microsoft said in a statement. The two companies also agreed to cooperate in the development and marketing of Microsoft's Windows Phone platform.
"Microsoft and Samsung see the opportunity for dramatic growth in Windows Phone and we're investing to make that a reality," Andy Lees, president of the Windows Phone Division at Microsoft said in a statement. "Microsoft believes in a model where all our partners can grow and profit based on our platform."
Details of the agreement are not known, but Microsoft has inked a deal with another high-profile Android device maker, HTC, which is said to net the Windows maker a high royalty rate of as much as $5 per device sold. Microsoft's licensing deal with HTC is so lucrative that some pundits have speculated whether the company makes more money off of Google's Android than it does its own Windows Phone 7 platform.
Prior to the announcement on Wednesday that it had inked a deal with Samsung, Microsoft had also secured licensing agreements earlier this month with Acer and ViewSonic, also related to Android.
Samsung said on Wednesday that it will continue to work with Microsoft on handsets, and that a "new chapter of collaboration" will begin this fall with the launch of Samsung smartphones running Windows Phone "Mango."
"Through the cross-licensing of our respective patent portfolios, Samsung and Microsoft can continue to bring the latest innovations to the mobile industry,? said Dr. Won-Pyo Hong, executive vice president of global product strategy at Samsung's mobile communication division.
Microsoft's new licensing deal comes as Samsung is involved in a separate legal dispute with Apple, in which Apple has accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Samsung has fired back with its own lawsuits accusing Apple of violating patents related to 3G wireless technology.
The patent litigation has found some early success for Apple, This month, which won a permanent ban on sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany, while the device has also been barred from sale in Australia. Last month, some Samsung Galaxy-branded phones were also barred from sale as a result of an Apple lawsuit.
The patent licensing agreement will provide "broad coverage for each company's products," Microsoft said in a statement. The two companies also agreed to cooperate in the development and marketing of Microsoft's Windows Phone platform.
"Microsoft and Samsung see the opportunity for dramatic growth in Windows Phone and we're investing to make that a reality," Andy Lees, president of the Windows Phone Division at Microsoft said in a statement. "Microsoft believes in a model where all our partners can grow and profit based on our platform."
Details of the agreement are not known, but Microsoft has inked a deal with another high-profile Android device maker, HTC, which is said to net the Windows maker a high royalty rate of as much as $5 per device sold. Microsoft's licensing deal with HTC is so lucrative that some pundits have speculated whether the company makes more money off of Google's Android than it does its own Windows Phone 7 platform.
Prior to the announcement on Wednesday that it had inked a deal with Samsung, Microsoft had also secured licensing agreements earlier this month with Acer and ViewSonic, also related to Android.
Samsung said on Wednesday that it will continue to work with Microsoft on handsets, and that a "new chapter of collaboration" will begin this fall with the launch of Samsung smartphones running Windows Phone "Mango."
"Through the cross-licensing of our respective patent portfolios, Samsung and Microsoft can continue to bring the latest innovations to the mobile industry,? said Dr. Won-Pyo Hong, executive vice president of global product strategy at Samsung's mobile communication division.
Microsoft's new licensing deal comes as Samsung is involved in a separate legal dispute with Apple, in which Apple has accused Samsung of copying the look and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Samsung has fired back with its own lawsuits accusing Apple of violating patents related to 3G wireless technology.
The patent litigation has found some early success for Apple, This month, which won a permanent ban on sales of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Germany, while the device has also been barred from sale in Australia. Last month, some Samsung Galaxy-branded phones were also barred from sale as a result of an Apple lawsuit.
Comments
"thank you, Page." Steve Ballmer.
Amazon would follow the example. So, "Thank you, Bezos, too!"
Amazon would follow the example. So, "Thank you, Bezos, too!"
At the end of the year, Microsoft should give a good bonus to their Android department.
Once Oracle, Microsoft and Apple all get their per-device royalty cut (if Apple goes that way), that "free" Android OS is going to start getting expensive.
I believe you'll find that nearly all the larger mobile device suppliers are paying royalties on IP. In just the past few months Apple agreed to pay a royalty to Nokia for every iPhone sold. I think Apple may also be paying a royalty to Motorola as well, since there's a very quiet lawsuit for contract violations that Apple has requested be sealed.
I believe you'll find that nearly all the larger mobile device suppliers are paying royalties on IP. In just the past few months Apple agreed to pay a royalty to Nokia for every iPhone sold. I think Apple may also be paying a royalty to Motorola as well, since there's a very quiet lawsuit for contract violations that Apple has requested be sealed.
Probably, but the original point still stands. One of the things that made Android such an attractive option for manufacturers was the low cost, without that advantage, it might start to get interesting for them to start looking at other mobile OS's. Especially now that the market is drowning in generic uninteresting Android phones, most manufacturers are not really making much money off of it, and Google is going to compete directly through Motorola (which probably means Motorola deviecs will have a competitive advantage).
I believe you'll find that nearly all the larger mobile device suppliers are paying royalties on IP. In just the past few months Apple agreed to pay a royalty to Nokia for every iPhone sold. I think Apple may also be paying a royalty to Motorola as well, since there's a very quiet lawsuit for contract violations that Apple has requested be sealed.
Why do you feel it necessary to try and divert every thread to your "mildly-anti Apple" agenda"?
It blinds you to the bigger picture. See d-range's comment above.
I believe you'll find that nearly all the larger mobile device suppliers are paying royalties on IP. In just the past few months Apple agreed to pay a royalty to Nokia for every iPhone sold. I think Apple may also be paying a royalty to Motorola as well, since there's a very quiet lawsuit for contract violations that Apple has requested be sealed.
Yes, but there's lots of cross-licensing where company A pays B, but makes money back from C and so on.
In this case, you have three companies all going after one (Google/Android), and Google doesn't have anything to trade back (cross license) with.
Probably, but the original point still stands. One of the things that made Android such an attractive option for manufacturers was the low cost, without that advantage, it might start to get interesting for them to start looking at other mobile OS's. Especially now that the market is drowning in generic uninteresting Android phones, most manufacturers are not really making much money off of it, and Google is going to compete directly through Motorola (which probably means Motorola deviecs will have a competitive advantage).
You're absolutely correct, and your original point is perfectly valid. If Android's only attraction is that it's very inexpensive to utilize, then Android may not be as advantageous to use as it was at first. My apologies if you took my reply as being dismissive of your opinion.
My post was only intended to make it clear that all the manufacturers, whether they created their own OS or not, are likely paying royalties to their competitors, and some of those may be significant fees. There's probably some segment of our members and visitors that are unaware of that.
Who wins/loses in the patent war, Apple or Google?
The people of the world lose.
So, that leads me back to how and why Samsung should be held to the fire for Android?
Because they are making money with it. It would be much harder to go after Google who is only making money from advertising in Android.
I believe you'll find that nearly all the larger mobile device suppliers are paying royalties on IP. In just the past few months Apple agreed to pay a royalty to Nokia for every iPhone sold. I think Apple may also be paying a royalty to Motorola as well, since there's a very quiet lawsuit for contract violations that Apple has requested be sealed.
Why do you feel it necessary to try and divert every thread to your "mildly-anti Apple" agenda"?
It blinds you to the bigger picture. See d-range's comment above.
+++ They're a nuisance -- but you just gotta' ignore those pesky little gnats.
Who wins/loses in the patent war, Apple or Google?
The people of the world lose.
To the contrary, the people of the world win!
The patent system is imperfect, and has become overwhelmed by technology.
But, without some sort of protection -- there would be little incentive for invention.
Fortunately, our Founding Fathers were prescient enough to include the following in the U.S. Constitution.
In Article I, section 8, the U.S. Constitution:
Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Apple haters say that Apple's success is due to "marketing." I'd say that Microsoft has vastly out-marketed Apple. It's amazing that Apple even survived the '90s when you consider how well Microsoft has shut out other, better, competing products: OSes (e.g. OS/2), software platforms (e.g. Netscape), and productivity apps (e.g. Visicalc, WordPerfect).
Microsoft's PC era success came from locking corporate buyers into long-term contracts, then pushing upgrades on those buyers. Not from consumer appeal. Microsoft customers were forced to continue buying Microsoft products. In contrast, Apple's post-PC era success comes from the appeal of its products and services, "pulling" customers back for more. Not from corporate licensing deals (although that may soon factor into Apple's growth.) Apple customers aren't forced to buy more Apple products, but they still do. Magical.
"Android" might soon be the most expensive smartphone OS, but the only licensable one with a relevant amount of phone apps.
Amazon and Baidu might both have to pay up as well, or even face injunctions if Oracle is successful (the Fire might be aptly named after all).
Samsung now supports 4 smartphone systems (Windows Phone 7, Bada, Android and Tizen), with Android getting less attractive every single day (Motorola in bed with Google, royalties ad inf, and still no tablet apps).
Google is approaching a dominant position in the smartphone market, financed by its dominating position in the online advertising market, with losses piling up like crazy (Motorola purchase, IBM licenses, and soon some nice cheque for Oracle). At some point this will lead to some naughty questions.
No idea how this will end, but somehow I believe the current positions in the smartphone race are not necessarily written in anything more than sand.