4 ms·

I don't understand. For one thing, Google wasn't "the early front runner", they were the stalking horse bid--essentially the minimum. There seems to be this ret

by GHFigs 15y ago

I don't understand. For one thing, Google wasn't "the early front runner", they were the stalking horse bid--essentially the minimum. There seems to be this retroactive meme going around to the effect that Google was expected to win with that bid or that they somehow deserved to. It's an auction, folks. It's not clear to me that that was their final bid, either. Maybe it was, but I can't imagine Google letting something important to them climb at auction from from $0.9 billion to $4.5 billion without staking another bid. The second thing I don't understand is the connection between the price paid by a consortium of major tech companies[1] for a collection of patents from a formerly major tech company--only a few of which are even software at all--to Fred Wilson ranting about Lodsys. Who is the troll here? Nortel? What is the significance of the dollar figure? How does it "echo the sentiment" of Wilson? [1]:BetaBeat says "...a coalition of Microsoft, Apple, RIM, and Sony...", while the actual press release[2] states: "Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, Research In Motion and Sony." [2]:http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nortel-announces-the-winning-bidder-of-its-patent-portfolio-for-a-purchase-price-of-us45-billion-2011-06-30?reflink=MW_news_stmp http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nortel-announces-the-winnin...

SoftwareMaven 15y ago
The complaining was around companies needing to spend $4.5B in pre-emptive legal defense. The $4.5B being pre-emptive is extrapolated by me (and I'm assuming the author) from Google stating their $900M was. Nowhere in the article did it even imply any of the players in this transaction were trolls.
- GHFigs 15y ago
  What was the point of saying that the size of the winning bid "echoes the sentiment" of a rant about Lodsys?
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    The whole article was about "Software patents are bad". The Nortel auction was just one example of why patents are bad. Fred Wilson's comments were to back up that theme. Lodsys is just another example. Read it in that light, and things tie together much more smoothly. Whether it is good writing (e.g. effectively conveying a point) is questionable, since it obviously has cause confusion.
scubzero 15y ago
I think the patent law being broken arguement that the article is trying to make is as follows: the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.
- cube13 15y ago
  Nortel has several 4G LTE-related patents in the pool(http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Not-Google-May-Benefit-More-from-Nortel-Patents-367853/ http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Not-Goog...). Those are HUGELY valuable to Apple, RIM, Sony Ericsson and Nokia. I would be very surprised if none of those companies came out with 4G phones in the next year or so. Getting control of the patents can save them a pretty tremendous amount of money on licensing fees. These were probably the ones that those companies wanted, and the entire reason that the price is so high. They simply could not let Google be the sole owner of the patents, because that would give Google way too much power in the mobile space. Out of all the companies, MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google. However, this also could signal that MS is going to make their own WM7 phone.
  - jsnell 15y ago
    How exactly would Google owning "several" patents on LTE translate to them being a sole owner of the technology? My understanding is that there are a couple of thousand patents on parts of LTE, with companies like Qualcomm, Nokia or Ericsson controlling hundreds of patents.
    - cube13 15y ago
      Whoops, I meant the patents. Edited to fix my stupidity.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    >"MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google" Exactly what is the basis for this? As you noted Nokia with whom Microsoft shares some interest would benefit from owning those patents. In addition, Microsoft as owner of Skype now has a substantial interest in patents applying to telephony networks.

by GHFigs 15y ago

SoftwareMaven 15y ago

The complaining was around companies needing to spend $4.5B in pre-emptive legal defense. The $4.5B being pre-emptive is extrapolated by me (and I'm assuming the author) from Google stating their $900M was. Nowhere in the article did it even imply any of the players in this transaction were trolls.

GHFigs 15y ago
What was the point of saying that the size of the winning bid "echoes the sentiment" of a rant about Lodsys?
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  The whole article was about "Software patents are bad". The Nortel auction was just one example of why patents are bad. Fred Wilson's comments were to back up that theme. Lodsys is just another example. Read it in that light, and things tie together much more smoothly. Whether it is good writing (e.g. effectively conveying a point) is questionable, since it obviously has cause confusion.

scubzero 15y ago

I think the patent law being broken arguement that the article is trying to make is as follows: the consortium that bought nortel's patents didn't do so for the patents themselves, they did so to prevent google from having the patents. And they didn't want google to not have the patents not because they were afraid of google bringing products to market based on those patents, but because they didn't want google to be able to shield themselves from patent lawsuits.

cube13 15y ago
Nortel has several 4G LTE-related patents in the pool(http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Not-Google-May-Benefit-More-from-Nortel-Patents-367853/ http://mobile.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/RIM-Not-Goog...). Those are HUGELY valuable to Apple, RIM, Sony Ericsson and Nokia. I would be very surprised if none of those companies came out with 4G phones in the next year or so. Getting control of the patents can save them a pretty tremendous amount of money on licensing fees. These were probably the ones that those companies wanted, and the entire reason that the price is so high. They simply could not let Google be the sole owner of the patents, because that would give Google way too much power in the mobile space. Out of all the companies, MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google. However, this also could signal that MS is going to make their own WM7 phone.
- jsnell 15y ago
  How exactly would Google owning "several" patents on LTE translate to them being a sole owner of the technology? My understanding is that there are a couple of thousand patents on parts of LTE, with companies like Qualcomm, Nokia or Ericsson controlling hundreds of patents.
  - cube13 15y ago
    Whoops, I meant the patents. Edited to fix my stupidity.
- brudgers 15y ago
  >"MS is probably the only one that did it specifically to hurt Google" Exactly what is the basis for this? As you noted Nokia with whom Microsoft shares some interest would benefit from owning those patents. In addition, Microsoft as owner of Skype now has a substantial interest in patents applying to telephony networks.