Google and Samsung have taken to the China Ministry of Commerce to express concern over Microsoft's impending $7.5 billion acquisition of Nokia, a new report claims.
The companies went before the Ministry of Commerce recently to say that the acquisition could give Microsoft too much control over the patent market by taking on Nokia, which has a massive patent portfolio, and thus could put competitors in a troubling competitive position, Bloomberg reported Monday, citing people who claim to have knowledge of the talks.
Microsoft isn't technically taking on all of the Nokia's mobile patents in the deal, deciding instead to leave the portfolio in Nokia's control. Still, Google and Samsung argue that Microsoft will have enough influence to hurt competitors on licensing fees.
This isn't the first time we've heard of companies expressing some concern over the patents Nokia owns. Last year, in fact, several Microsoft competitors went before the European Union raising the same competitive concerns. The EU approved the deal, but said it would watch Nokia's licensing to ensure it fell within legal constraints.
The companies went before the Ministry of Commerce recently to say that the acquisition could give Microsoft too much control over the patent market by taking on Nokia, which has a massive patent portfolio, and thus could put competitors in a troubling competitive position, Bloomberg reported Monday, citing people who claim to have knowledge of the talks.
Microsoft isn't technically taking on all of the Nokia's mobile patents in the deal, deciding instead to leave the portfolio in Nokia's control. Still, Google and Samsung argue that Microsoft will have enough influence to hurt competitors on licensing fees.
This isn't the first time we've heard of companies expressing some concern over the patents Nokia owns. Last year, in fact, several Microsoft competitors went before the European Union raising the same competitive concerns. The EU approved the deal, but said it would watch Nokia's licensing to ensure it fell within legal constraints.
No comments:
Post a Comment