8th October, 2010 by adina
Tags: Android, Microsoft, Motorola, News

Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief, said in an interview that every Android phone producer should pay Microsoft. Asked about how Microsoft would compete with its Windows Phone 7 while Android is license-free, Ballmer said that it was not free and Microsoft should receive royalty payouts for Android use. He also indicated the HTC deal as pro argument.
He did not comment on the recently launched Motorola lawsuit, relate to similar issues. In contrast to HTC, Motorola has insisted not to violate patents and relied on its own patent portfolio as support. Microsoft however has never sent in court its patent claims related to Android.
An eventual campaign aiming to collect fees from Android would jeopardize its use all over the world and would affect mainly small manufacturers that might not be able to pay for licensing every device sold. Microsoft has decided not to sue Google itself and is suspected of trying to target only those companies which have device figures easily quantifiable.
This approach of putting pressure on companies into licenses or lawsuits reveals an older strategy meant to scare companies away from Linux. Microsoft has made licensing deals with companies that were either developing or using Linux distributions but without having the patents challenged. Similar to the Linux case, Microsoft would benefit from Android royalties even in the case of losing market share.
Microsoft’s competition with free operating system licenses has always been a sticking point for the company. Being initially in the minority in a netbook world dominated by Linux, Microsoft has dumped the price of Windows XP to the point where it commanded a $15 premium over Linux. Benefiting from a more friendly and familiar interface, this lower price brought Windows in the majority of netbooks and it was only lately that it faced real competition when Apple launched its iPad and determined a decrease in netbook sales.