> Samsung alone paid Microsoft a billion bucks to license its Android patents.
So like, why didn't Samsung take them to court?
Samsung simply stopped paying Microsoft the royalties after the Nokia purchase (Samsung claimed it was a breach of the agreement). Microsoft filed a suite, but after negotiations, the issue was settled[1] under confidential terms. Since then, Samsung now bundles Microsoft's software on its Android devices - feel free to speculate on the direction the payments might be going.
1.http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/02/microsoft-and-samsung...
To repeat Don Draper in the Mad Men pilot (s01e01)
> The Federal Trade Commission and "Reader's Digest" have done you a favor. They've let you know that any ad that brings up the concept of health and cigarettes together, well, it just makes people think of cancer.
http://goodinaroom.com/wp-content/uploads/Mad-Men-pilot-scri...
My thinking here is if I were in charge of all of Samsung, I wouldn't mind a $15 per device cost of doing business as long as I was reasonably sure that my competitors had to pay the same sum as well. If I were in charge of Samsung, my concern would be that Microsoft would play favorites with competitors like htc.
Please keep in mind that there are no facts here. just my guesses.
It's also worth noting that MicroSoft started looking for license payments while Samsung was still in court with Apple of patent issues. It's very possible they didn't want another large lawsuit.
The bigger problem (for a large company) is the uncertainty caused by litigation. It's a distraction to the core business and can tie-up attempts to improve or expand on features accused in the litigation, not to mention it can spook investors.