[pyre]

Placing the licensing fee for these patents at the same cost as licensing WP7 seems: 1) extremely anti-competitive and 2) unreasonable.

This seems like Microsoft is still trying to stay relevant via patent litigation rather than actual innovation. If WP7 tanks, then they are still getting the same amount of licensing fees for every Android handset sold, so who cares (from their perspective) that WP7 tanked...

[brudgers]

>"Placing the licensing fee for these patents at the same cost as licensing WP7 seems: 1) extremely anti-competitive and 2) unreasonable."

[IANAL]

To me, equivalent pricing seems to be plausibly consistent with the fair market price of a mobile operating system which incorporates Microsoft technology... [edit] at least from the perspective of a lawyer representing Microsoft.[/edit]

It is hard to argue that Microsoft is placing Android at a disadvantage relative to WP7 when the price is equal since this allows Android to compete upon its technical merits and any perceived market advantage the brand provides.

[pyre]

How is it the the license for a handful of patents is equivalent to the license for an entire operating system that incorporates a lot more than just those patents?

It comes out looking something like this:

  license for WP7     (1000 MS patents) = $40/device
  license for Android (6 MS patents)    = $40/device

(obviously the numbers are made-up, but you can get the gist)

"a mobile operating system which incorporates Microsoft technology" is a gross simplification.

[brudgers]

>"How is it the the license for a handful of patents is equivalent to the license for an entire operating system that incorporates a lot more than just those patents?"

Because your question requires an understanding of the ways markets equilibrate, perhaps the Market Economics Fairy can provide an appropriate answer regarding the way in which the market establishes the exchange value of mobile operating systems based on supply and demand.