Note that Motorola (i.e., Google) is also filing a motion to hide the terms of their license with Samsung, as is RIM and Qualcomm. There's nothing special about Microsoft here except Groklaw is anti-Microsoft so Microsoft is the one that gets mentioned in the headline.
Seems to me that the article singles out Microsoft because it puts this motion in the context of Microsoft making secret patent deals with Android manufacturers:
I seriously want to see those license terms, and I'd go so far as to suggest that the public has a right to know what those terms are, particularly future victims of Microsoft's patent strategy, and I know you want to know this too, because we've all heard the rumors that Microsoft licenses on very, very low royalties, just to be able to say to the world that Android/Linux folks are paying Microsoft for its patents. I'd love to know if that is true. Plus, if Microsoft paid for Samsung's FRAND patents the fee Samsung is asking Apple for, on what basis would Microsoft argue in its litigation against Motorola, that FRAND patents should be paid for at a greatly reduced royalty?
I think it was more in line with wanting to know how much Microsoft is charging. I suspect its like salary negotiations where you don't want the other side to know what you've already agreed to with others since that would give them an advantage in the pricing discussion. Same with patent licenses.
My understanding is Microsoft is different. The difference is that RIM, Motorola, and Qualcomm are FRAND agreements for Samsung's patents rather than non-FRAND terms for Samsung licening patents from Microsoft. The first three worry that the documents will expose their trade secrets around how their devices work and what patents they need licenses for. Two different sides of the coin.
I wouldn't be surprised is Samsung is not paying anything to Microsoft for the IP in question but has instead agreed to commit some of its smartphone production line to Windows phones (and this is what Microsoft wants to hide)
