Microsoft sues Samsung: When we buy Nokia, Koreans don't pay royalties.

Microsoft filed a lawsuit against the US federal Court in Manhattan late yesterday to sue Samsung Electronics for defaulting on royalties. Microsoft's Senior legal advisor, David Howard, said, "Samsung has refused to pay Microsoft royalties in accordance with the agreement since Microsoft bought Nokia."

Charging the Android phone maker royalties is a big cash flow for Microsoft and has been earning more than Microsoft's own Windows Phone business. The patent fees that Microsoft received from Android phone makers in 2013 were based on a different algorithm between 500 million and 2.5 billion dollars. It is difficult to give an accurate conclusion because the cross licensing agreements of the major manufacturers are very complicated.

Samsung in 2011 and Microsoft reached a deal, every shipment of an Android phone to Microsoft to pay a fixed amount of patent licensing fees. The figures are not disclosed, but they are not believed to be less than 5 dollars. If Microsoft's version is true, Samsung's default royalties could be as high as $1 billion, according to estimates of shipments over the past three quarters. Microsoft filed a legal document showing that Samsung later paid some of the royalties, but never paid the interest accrued by the delay.

However, Microsoft has not been shameless in its statement, describing the lawsuit as "even partners will have different opinions". The Samsung Focus series is the best-selling Windows Phone smartphone for Nokia Lumia. But as Nokia and Microsoft get closer and even merged, Samsung is gradually abandoning the windows Phone market. According to the available information, Samsung's logo may no longer be visible in the next generation of Windows Phone product matrix.

Samsung and Apple are now in the process of patent lawsuits. According to Businesskorea, while Apple has abandoned the demand for a ban on Samsung products in court, Samsung is still seeking an appeal to overturn the ruling on the previous century's patent case.