Yeah, this is a communication issue. When I said "disproportionately", you apparently heard something like "predominately". But that's not what I meant.
The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests. You are apparently trying to take that same fact and argue in the opposite direction, and I don't think the logic works that way.
>The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests.
I don't see how it's Microsoft's choice to pay more or less. The terms are pretty clear and the same for all.
I also don't see how paying more will allow it to have more influence on the MPEG-LA, they're more like a customer. That's a pretty torturous argument to make.
MPEG-LA needs to keep Microsoft as a customer. Your biggest customer often has more influence on your business model than your smallest customer. If Microsoft can show they are willing to make moves to no longer be a customer of MPEG-LA, MPEG-LA will make moves to show that Microsoft should continue to be a customer.
The point is that MSFT might pay more into the MPEG-LA than it gets precisely so it can influence the MPEG-LA to take actions that are beneficial to Microsoft's other business interests. You are apparently trying to take that same fact and argue in the opposite direction, and I don't think the logic works that way.