Microsoft And Samsung Resume Talks To Resolve Issues Related To Android Patent Licensing Contract

Earlier this month, we reported that Microsoft has filed a legal action against Samsung in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The reason behind was that Samsung has stopped paying patent royalties as per the contract it signed in 2011 pointing out reasons like Microsoft has now acquired Nokia’s Devices and Services business. We all know that Microsoft and Samsung need each other. While Microsoft is a leader on software front, Samsung leads in the hardware. Today, Korea Times reported that Microsoft and Samsung has now resumed talks to resolve this contract issue.

“The key point is that Microsoft wants to settle the lawsuit and it’s no surprise to see that the two technology giants have resumed ‘working-level’ discussions on how to dismiss lawsuits filed by Microsoft to a New York court,” said an industry official by telephone, Sunday.

The official added the settlement would not take long because the main issue was how to renew terms of details such as royalty payments in return for using patents.

This is a good news for both the companies. Hopefully, they will be back with a good news.

Back story,

Back in 2011, Microsoft announced that it has signed a definitive agreement with Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., to cross-license the patent portfolios of both companies, providing broad coverage for each company’s products. Under the terms of the agreement, Microsoft will receive royalties for Samsung’s mobile phones and tablets running the Android mobile platform. Today, Microsoft surprised everyone by announcing that they have filed legal action against Samsung in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Why? Because, Samsung is stopped paying patent royalties as per the contract it signed in 2011 citing lame reasons like Microsoft acquired Nokia’s Devices and Services business.   said, “After spending months trying to resolve our disagreement, Samsung has made clear in a series of letters and discussions that we have a fundamental disagreement as to the meaning of our contract.”

Source: Korea Times

Some links in the article may not be viewable as you are using an AdBlocker. Please add us to your whitelist to enable the website to function properly.