Microsoft sues Samsung over nonpayment of Android patent licensing royalties

“On Friday, Microsoft filed a lawsuit against Samsung, accusing the company of going back on the patent licensing deal the two signed three years ago,” Nick Wingfield reports for The New York Times.

“In the lawsuit, Microsoft said that Samsung stopped making royalty payments to Microsoft last fall, as required by their 2011 agreement, which related to Samsung’s use of Microsoft’s intellectual property in its Android smartphones and tablets,” Wingfield reports. “Samsung stopped making the payments, according to Microsoft, because it felt that Microsoft’s acquisition of Nokia‘s mobile business amounted to a breach of contract.”

” In a blog post, David Howard, Microsoft’s deputy general counsel and corporate vice president, suggested that the real reason Samsung decided to stop paying was that its smartphones sales have quadrupled since the two companies signed their agreement,” Wingfield reports. “The heavily redacted lawsuit does not say how much money Microsoft believes it is owed by Samsung. Analysts have estimated that Microsoft receives billions of dollars a year in payments through licensing agreements with Android-device makers.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: When you enter into a deal with the devil, you should expect hell.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Google claims Microsoft’s Samsung Android licensing deal is ‘extortion’ – September 28, 2011
Microsoft and Samsung cross-license patents; Samsung to pay Microsoft royalties for Android devices – September 28, 2011

44 Comments

    1. Steve pulled a fast one on Microsoft to be more accurate, buying time and manipulating the situation to his advantage while MS thought it was doing the same to save itself from anti competition and monopolist accusations. Steve used its power against it as he did time and again and the result is the final defeat of Microsoft as a serious competitor. Not sure Samsung can claim the same thing in this.

    1. That’s a very good point. Samsung would rather settle than be shamed by what they’ve been hiding. You *know* the sales of the premium models have to have been well below the iPhone or else they’d have been crowing about it.

  1. Don’t the people running Samsung know when enough is enough, or is IP theft so deeply ingrained into their corporate culture that they just can’t help themselves? Can they really afford the bad PR?

    1. There new Galaxy Phone WD will also wash and dry your laundry as well as make phone calls. . . and prepare your dinner in the auxiliary Microwave 3D surround sound oven.

  2. I am not a layer but as far as I understand it, a contract is an an agreement between two entities by which they acquire both rights and obligations.
    M$ acquired the right to receive payments in exchange for the obligation of allowing to use their IP
    Scamsung acquired the right to use M$’s IP in exchange for the obligation of paying for its use.
    If the contract is breached then both rights and obligations cease to be in effect.
    M$ lost the right to receive payments and Scamsung lost the right to use of the patents.
    Of course the contract surely contains a breach-of-contract clause that specifies what happens if anyone of the signing parties fails to abide by their obligations.
    Scamsung “felt” that contract obliged M$ to keep from buying a phone manufacturing company (Nokia), and “felt” the breach-of-contract allows them to use the patents freely.

  3. > Analysts have estimated that Microsoft receives billions of dollars a year in payments through licensing agreements with Android-device makers.

    Probably more than Microsoft currently makes by licensing Windows 8.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.