3 ms·

Sure, they got a good deal. Moto's wireless patents were second only (or maybe third) to Qualcomm's in term of quality and they generated a steady stream of li

Sure, they got a good deal. Moto's wireless patents were second only (or maybe third) to Qualcomm's in term of quality and they generated a steady stream of licensing revenues before and after the acquisition. Unlike WeWork's unproven business model, the wireless industry's successful revenue generating licensing practices were in place for a decade and Moto's patents were worth quite a bit. Now let's not forget why Google bought Moto's patents. Just before Google's acquisition, a consortium led by Apple bought Nortel's old, lesser patents for $4.5B. Ever heard of Apple's patent troll outfit Rockstar (or Mobilestar)? They tried to run a patent extortion ring against Android OEMs in the famed Eastern District of Texas with Apple behind the curtain. That is, until Google and Samsung's countersuit convinced the courts that the patent troll's litigation strategy "was consistent with Apple's particular business interest." They quickly dropped their sham lawsuits when the courts agreed to transfer venue to Apple's backyard. Needlessly to say, Moto's patents in the wrong hands would have been a devastating blow far more than $4B to Google's business.

scarface74 7y ago
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/01030115745/are-any-patents-google-got-with-motorola-mobility-any-good.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/01030115745/are-a... Still, the folks at M-CAM decided to put the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio to the test by using a variety of scoring techniques, and believes that the portfolio isn't all that valuable, both in the aggregate and at the specific level. It basically found that about 48% of the patents are probably worthless. At the specific level, the company looked at the 18 patents that Motorola Mobility had asserted against Apple, suggesting that these particular patents may be the "stars" of the bunch -- but, again, found that nine of those patents were "impaired," and were unlikely to be very strong or valuable.
- tooltalk 7y ago
  I'm guessing that they evaluated the patents before Motorola got preliminary injunction against Apple. IIRC, fewer than 2-3% of all patents actually survive and are upheld in patent trials, so they are not probably wrong when they say 48% of Moto's patents are worthless, but that isn't saying much. Take for instance, Apple's design and utility patents asserted against Samsung in Germany. All, 100%, of their patent and claims were invalidated, and declared worthless. I guess Moto's 48% is far better than 100% worthless. The key questions re: Moto's patents were their applicability, not their validity. Moto had filed lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft before Google bought it -- the court had to address Moto's appropriate FRAND licensing fee for SEPs (802 wireless standards and H.264 video encoding standards) and proper court jurisdiction. IMHO, there is no reason to believe that Moto acquisition was a waste of money and, considering Android's popularity and success of Android today, despite threats from Apple's patent trolling (and even Microsoft), Google's strategy patent strategy worked well.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    It’s estimated that Microsoft made more from each Android phone sold via patent licenses than Google. Apple sued Samsung not for the Android parts but for the design of the phones.
    - tooltalk 7y ago
      Wrong. Apple also sued Samsung for Android core features, but no infringement was found. Microsoft was a tiny iceberg and exemplified what could have happened to Android. Samsung was reportedly paying close to $1B for a couple of years, until MS bought Nokia. Google effectively neutered Apple's patent trolling operation by threatening to expose the troll's true motive, and prevented potential threat from Moto patent portfolio by preemptively purchasing it -- on the cheap.

scarface74 7y ago

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/01030115745/are-any-patents-google-got-with-motorola-mobility-any-good.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110831/01030115745/are-a... Still, the folks at M-CAM decided to put the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio to the test by using a variety of scoring techniques, and believes that the portfolio isn't all that valuable, both in the aggregate and at the specific level. It basically found that about 48% of the patents are probably worthless. At the specific level, the company looked at the 18 patents that Motorola Mobility had asserted against Apple, suggesting that these particular patents may be the "stars" of the bunch -- but, again, found that nine of those patents were "impaired," and were unlikely to be very strong or valuable.

tooltalk 7y ago
I'm guessing that they evaluated the patents before Motorola got preliminary injunction against Apple. IIRC, fewer than 2-3% of all patents actually survive and are upheld in patent trials, so they are not probably wrong when they say 48% of Moto's patents are worthless, but that isn't saying much. Take for instance, Apple's design and utility patents asserted against Samsung in Germany. All, 100%, of their patent and claims were invalidated, and declared worthless. I guess Moto's 48% is far better than 100% worthless. The key questions re: Moto's patents were their applicability, not their validity. Moto had filed lawsuits against Apple and Microsoft before Google bought it -- the court had to address Moto's appropriate FRAND licensing fee for SEPs (802 wireless standards and H.264 video encoding standards) and proper court jurisdiction. IMHO, there is no reason to believe that Moto acquisition was a waste of money and, considering Android's popularity and success of Android today, despite threats from Apple's patent trolling (and even Microsoft), Google's strategy patent strategy worked well.
- scarface74 7y ago
  It’s estimated that Microsoft made more from each Android phone sold via patent licenses than Google. Apple sued Samsung not for the Android parts but for the design of the phones.
  - tooltalk 7y ago
    Wrong. Apple also sued Samsung for Android core features, but no infringement was found. Microsoft was a tiny iceberg and exemplified what could have happened to Android. Samsung was reportedly paying close to $1B for a couple of years, until MS bought Nokia. Google effectively neutered Apple's patent trolling operation by threatening to expose the troll's true motive, and prevented potential threat from Moto patent portfolio by preemptively purchasing it -- on the cheap.