5 ms·

This is a big boy move: like the spectrum auction, it's win-win: if they win, they have a defensive portfolio; if they lose, they force higher bids from others,

This is a big boy move: like the spectrum auction, it's win-win: if they win, they have a defensive portfolio; if they lose, they force higher bids from others, meaning that others are going to have to outlay a lot more cash just to get into a position where they can sue Google from, so that once they do, they are doing so from a weaker position. Being able to spend billions on win-win moves that invariably weaken the field without any of those billions going towards improving client/consumer experience? Maybe Microsoft's got a valid point about abuses of dominant positions by Google.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago
> Maybe Microsoft's got a valid point about abuses of dominant positions by Google. I agree with you that they've made some clever moves, but Google owns no spectrum (and this was before Android, right?) and almost no patents. It's hard to argue that they are abusing their dominant position in those fields - people are scared of what they could do, but "potential monopolist" is not a strong basis for an antitrust case.
nolok 16y ago
Making sure android can offer all the expected features of a modern phone os without being sued to death isn't improving the consumer experience ? And the whole monopoly thing you said is ludicrous, having a business that is making a whole lot of cash is in no way the same thing as abusing a dominant position. I honestly can't even understand how you could confuse the two. That's like saying the red cross is abusing its dominant position since it earns so much donations that it can afford to send people pretty much everywhere while other orgs can't. (I am in no way implying a relation between google and the red cross, just the first exemple to pop in my mind)
Gaussian 16y ago
What will truly be interesting: How will Google wield its patent cache when, inevitably, waters get rougher in the future and some upstart punches them in the nose? If they shake it off and say, "let's dance," rather than calling their patent lawyers, then they will have lived up to the credo they're espousing here.
- moultano 16y ago
  And as an additional insurance, their employee retention/recruitment depends on them living up to their credo.
yanw 16y ago
I don't get that logic. They aren't the only ones with billions to spare, Microsoft for example has more. You are suggesting that they mustn't find a way to protect their interests from patent suits because otherwise they are abusing their position?! that doesn't make sense.
idlewords 16y ago
Google is either going to spend lots of money on buying patents, or lots of money on lobbying and litigation. That's only win-win for lawyers. Everyone else loses out, since as you point out it diverts funds away from productive use (though how that's an abuse of Google's position escapes me).
tzs 16y ago
> if they lose, they force higher bids from others, meaning that others are going to have to outlay a lot more cash just to get into a position where they can sue Google from, so that once they do, they are doing so from a weaker position On the other hand, it could also mean that the eventual winner has more incentive to seek higher licensing fees, and to sue those who won't buy licenses, in order to make up for the higher amount they paid to get the patents.

JoachimSchipper 16y ago

> Maybe Microsoft's got a valid point about abuses of dominant positions by Google. I agree with you that they've made some clever moves, but Google owns no spectrum (and this was before Android, right?) and almost no patents. It's hard to argue that they are abusing their dominant position in those fields - people are scared of what they could do, but "potential monopolist" is not a strong basis for an antitrust case.

nolok 16y ago

Making sure android can offer all the expected features of a modern phone os without being sued to death isn't improving the consumer experience ? And the whole monopoly thing you said is ludicrous, having a business that is making a whole lot of cash is in no way the same thing as abusing a dominant position. I honestly can't even understand how you could confuse the two. That's like saying the red cross is abusing its dominant position since it earns so much donations that it can afford to send people pretty much everywhere while other orgs can't. (I am in no way implying a relation between google and the red cross, just the first exemple to pop in my mind)

Gaussian 16y ago

What will truly be interesting: How will Google wield its patent cache when, inevitably, waters get rougher in the future and some upstart punches them in the nose? If they shake it off and say, "let's dance," rather than calling their patent lawyers, then they will have lived up to the credo they're espousing here.

moultano 16y ago
And as an additional insurance, their employee retention/recruitment depends on them living up to their credo.

yanw 16y ago

I don't get that logic. They aren't the only ones with billions to spare, Microsoft for example has more. You are suggesting that they mustn't find a way to protect their interests from patent suits because otherwise they are abusing their position?! that doesn't make sense.

idlewords 16y ago

Google is either going to spend lots of money on buying patents, or lots of money on lobbying and litigation. That's only win-win for lawyers. Everyone else loses out, since as you point out it diverts funds away from productive use (though how that's an abuse of Google's position escapes me).

tzs 16y ago

> if they lose, they force higher bids from others, meaning that others are going to have to outlay a lot more cash just to get into a position where they can sue Google from, so that once they do, they are doing so from a weaker position On the other hand, it could also mean that the eventual winner has more incentive to seek higher licensing fees, and to sue those who won't buy licenses, in order to make up for the higher amount they paid to get the patents.