6 ms·

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
      > Prevent what outcome. From the link I pasted: 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... "The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld (PDF) a 2013 jury verdict finding that Motorola must pay Microsoft $14.5 million for violating its commitments to license certain standard-essential patents on a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) basis." >Motorola and Microsoft did. As the timeline I posted shows, Google owned Motorola for a significant portion of the duration of the lawsuit, most importantly the part where they got penalized. > 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... Uh, yes? If you're putting out a bunch of PR about how other companies are using patents to "attack" Android, you should not end up the only company penalized for actually abusing patents. You can't say, "Oh, it's a company we fully own, but we can't really control their lawyers and waste their efforts." You know who else plays the "shell company" game, right?

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
    > Prevent what outcome. From the link I pasted: 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... "The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld (PDF) a 2013 jury verdict finding that Motorola must pay Microsoft $14.5 million for violating its commitments to license certain standard-essential patents on a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) basis." >Motorola and Microsoft did. As the timeline I posted shows, Google owned Motorola for a significant portion of the duration of the lawsuit, most importantly the part where they got penalized. > 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... Uh, yes? If you're putting out a bunch of PR about how other companies are using patents to "attack" Android, you should not end up the only company penalized for actually abusing patents. You can't say, "Oh, it's a company we fully own, but we can't really control their lawyers and waste their efforts." You know who else plays the "shell company" game, right?