5 ms·

TFA (perhaps unsurprisingly) does not mention this particular Microsoft-Google case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-upholds-microsoft

TFA (perhaps unsurprisingly) does not mention this particular Microsoft-Google case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-upholds-microsofts-legal-win-over-motorola/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-uph... Of all the patent lawsuits that happened in all the smartphone wars that nobody won, this was the only case where a company was actually sanctioned for, essentially, abusing patents. And this happened on Google's watch. For all the rhetoric Google spewed about how their competitors were abusing patents, ironic that they were the one company that was actually found to be a bad actor. I always thought Google for too much of a free pass on that one. Interestingly the Ars article I linked does not mention Google at all. Guess it's not so surprising they got a free pass.

nemothekid 11y ago
Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's acquisition of Moto. It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue). Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google
- chc 11y ago
  > the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Google I think you mean Motorola and Microsoft.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.
  - nemothekid 11y ago
    Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was Microsoft who started the patent litigation against Motorola, and it was Motorola who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as the scope of the article goes).
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      When you fully own the entity that is involved, you are not "tangentially" involved.
  - Oletros 11y ago
    The filling by Microsoft in november 2010 is not a couple of months before Google's acquisition
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Mea culpa, my memory is bad, so let's lay out the timeline: Early Oct 2010: Microsoft files lawsuit. Late Oct 2010: Motorola countersues. Aug 2011: Google announces Motorola acquisition. (Many would say Google's watch starts now.) May 2012: Google closes Motorola acquisition. Sept 2013: Microsoft wins 14M judgement with jury deciding unanimously that Google was a bad actor. Regardless of where you start the stopwatch, Google had at least a full 16 months to prevent this outcome. And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy.
      - Oletros 11y ago
        yap, Google is evil, got it
        throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Not quite evil, just a hypocrite.
      - nemothekid 11y ago
        >And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy. Prevent what outcome. You aren't being clear on how Google abused patents. What patents did specifically Google abuse? If my reading comprehension serves me right, Google didn't sue anyone over the use of any patents - Motorola and Microsoft did. The litigation you listed says Motorola refused to pay a licensing fee, and Microsoft sued - all without the help of Google. If your argument is that after the the acquisition, Google should have went behind the backs of Moto's lawyers who had been working 8 months on this case and done something - then I assume you are just grasping at straws to create some "hypocrisy" story.
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  People may like to portray Microsoft's use of patents as "abuse", but the fact stands that they have successfully licensed their portfolio to most Android manufacturers with a minimum of lawsuits and, more importantly, without being legally penalized like Google/Motorola were.
lern_too_spel 11y ago
TFA mentions that exact case. "In return fire, Motorola Mobilty demanded Xbox patent royalties. In particular Motorola Mobility demanded higher payments for its s H.264 video and networking 'essential' patents."
- throwawaykf05 11y ago
  My bad, was not very clear, I meant TFA does not mention the 14M judgement that Google was slapped with, marking it as the only company legally proven to be abusing patents.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    Litigation is a crap-shoot. Microsoft could have just as easily been slapped with such a judgement on its FAT patent that provoked that countersuit. Instead, it went the other way. The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft was the aggressor. Without the FAT litigation, there would have been no h.264 litigation.
    - throwawaykf05 11y ago
      Sure, litigation a crapshoot, but MS has asserted the FAT (and other) patents numerous times but has not seen anything like this judgement. In fact, even the most egregious patent trolls have not suffered anything like this. The thing that is really clear but missed by most is that this was the one lawsuit where pretty much every nuetral party involved agreed that Google / Motorola was the bad actor, and a penalty was imposed on the badness of the actions, totally unrelated to the quantity of infringement itself.

nemothekid 11y ago

Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's acquisition of Moto. It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue). Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google

chc 11y ago
> the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Google I think you mean Motorola and Microsoft.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
It started a couple months before the acquisition but largely went through and ended (I.e. with the 14M verify against) while Google owned Motorola.
- nemothekid 11y ago
  Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was Microsoft who started the patent litigation against Motorola, and it was Motorola who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as the scope of the article goes).
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    When you fully own the entity that is involved, you are not "tangentially" involved.
- Oletros 11y ago
  The filling by Microsoft in november 2010 is not a couple of months before Google's acquisition
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    Mea culpa, my memory is bad, so let's lay out the timeline: Early Oct 2010: Microsoft files lawsuit. Late Oct 2010: Motorola countersues. Aug 2011: Google announces Motorola acquisition. (Many would say Google's watch starts now.) May 2012: Google closes Motorola acquisition. Sept 2013: Microsoft wins 14M judgement with jury deciding unanimously that Google was a bad actor. Regardless of where you start the stopwatch, Google had at least a full 16 months to prevent this outcome. And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy.
    - Oletros 11y ago
      yap, Google is evil, got it
      - throwawaykf05 11y ago
        Not quite evil, just a hypocrite.
    - nemothekid 11y ago
      >And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy. Prevent what outcome. You aren't being clear on how Google abused patents. What patents did specifically Google abuse? If my reading comprehension serves me right, Google didn't sue anyone over the use of any patents - Motorola and Microsoft did. The litigation you listed says Motorola refused to pay a licensing fee, and Microsoft sued - all without the help of Google. If your argument is that after the the acquisition, Google should have went behind the backs of Moto's lawyers who had been working 8 months on this case and done something - then I assume you are just grasping at straws to create some "hypocrisy" story.
throwawaykf05 11y ago
People may like to portray Microsoft's use of patents as "abuse", but the fact stands that they have successfully licensed their portfolio to most Android manufacturers with a minimum of lawsuits and, more importantly, without being legally penalized like Google/Motorola were.

lern_too_spel 11y ago

TFA mentions that exact case. "In return fire, Motorola Mobilty demanded Xbox patent royalties. In particular Motorola Mobility demanded higher payments for its s H.264 video and networking 'essential' patents."

throwawaykf05 11y ago
My bad, was not very clear, I meant TFA does not mention the 14M judgement that Google was slapped with, marking it as the only company legally proven to be abusing patents.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  Litigation is a crap-shoot. Microsoft could have just as easily been slapped with such a judgement on its FAT patent that provoked that countersuit. Instead, it went the other way. The only thing that's clear is that Microsoft was the aggressor. Without the FAT litigation, there would have been no h.264 litigation.
  - throwawaykf05 11y ago
    Sure, litigation a crapshoot, but MS has asserted the FAT (and other) patents numerous times but has not seen anything like this judgement. In fact, even the most egregious patent trolls have not suffered anything like this. The thing that is really clear but missed by most is that this was the one lawsuit where pretty much every nuetral party involved agreed that Google / Motorola was the bad actor, and a penalty was imposed on the badness of the actions, totally unrelated to the quantity of infringement itself.