18 ms·

Should Google do the same thing to Microsoft? Google has shareholders. If they did, I would lose respect for Google that I have already lost for Miscrosoft. Som

Should Google do the same thing to Microsoft? Google has shareholders. If they did, I would lose respect for Google that I have already lost for Miscrosoft. Somehow, I don't think Google will, and not just because Windows Mobile is closed source. I think public opinion/brand reputation is an important thing to consider in these types of situations. For example, this poll shows only 32% of people agree with the strategy: http://www.wepolls.com/r/584161/Should-Microsoft-continue-to-get-$5-for-every-HTC-Android-phone-because-of-their-patents&force=1 http://www.wepolls.com/r/584161/Should-Microsoft-continue-to... I wonder what effect that has on the other 68% next time they have a choice between Microsoft and someone else.

mwsherman 15y ago
Well, that's an argument of self-interest. Does the PR cost outweigh the profit? I think a lot of firms come to the conclusion that the profit is bigger. Most of the world (consumers) doesn't give two shakes about patents.
barista 15y ago
What about Apple? They have used saimilar tactic. How about Oracle? IBM? Cisco? Lost respect for those too? Pretty much every company follows similar tactic to protect its interest. The fact Google does not use it is not because they "do no evil" but that they don't have any patents to ask money for.
- yuhong 15y ago
  They do have patents, they just don't use them the same way.
- abecedarius 15y ago
  This is in fact one of the reasons for my higher opinion of Google over Apple.
- zmmmmm 15y ago
  > The fact Google does not use it is not because they "do no evil" but that they don't have any patents to ask money for. At this point though, with thousands of phd level engineers and probably tens of thousands of the smartest people on the planet working for them, you have to conclude that the reason they have no patents is not that they are unable to produce patents, but rather a conscious choice that they don't want to. The Nortel auction was fascinating. After leading the bidding Google just left the table and let its competitors buy up all the patents - patents that may very well injure Google in the future. I find it really weird that they opted out of at least buying some "protection" - in the end I can only put it down to a matter of principle - which is something I do respect them for.
  - CamperBob 15y ago
    It was probably a reasonable risk/return calculation on their part. What are the odds that they will be on the losing end of more than $3.14 billion in patent suits? How much interest can $3.14 billion earn between now and the time these hypothetical damages will have to be paid? The calculation might have gone differently if it hadn't been for the fairly recent SCOTUS decision that made it more difficult for a plaintiff to obtain a permanent injunction against distribution of an allegedly-infringing product ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/supreme_court_v.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/supreme_court_v.html ). If it hadn't been for that decision, the Nortel patents might have been worth $3 billion and then some.
fragsworth 15y ago
Except the customers who are even aware of these lawsuits probably account for such a small percentage of customers as to be negligible.
rapind 15y ago
One of the reasons Google may not have given into the pressure is due to their stock voting structure. Larry and Sergey have final say. Call me naive, but I actually think they try to stay away from playing in the filth even if everyone else is doing it.

mwsherman 15y ago

Well, that's an argument of self-interest. Does the PR cost outweigh the profit? I think a lot of firms come to the conclusion that the profit is bigger. Most of the world (consumers) doesn't give two shakes about patents.

barista 15y ago

What about Apple? They have used saimilar tactic. How about Oracle? IBM? Cisco? Lost respect for those too? Pretty much every company follows similar tactic to protect its interest. The fact Google does not use it is not because they "do no evil" but that they don't have any patents to ask money for.

yuhong 15y ago
They do have patents, they just don't use them the same way.
abecedarius 15y ago
This is in fact one of the reasons for my higher opinion of Google over Apple.
zmmmmm 15y ago
> The fact Google does not use it is not because they "do no evil" but that they don't have any patents to ask money for. At this point though, with thousands of phd level engineers and probably tens of thousands of the smartest people on the planet working for them, you have to conclude that the reason they have no patents is not that they are unable to produce patents, but rather a conscious choice that they don't want to. The Nortel auction was fascinating. After leading the bidding Google just left the table and let its competitors buy up all the patents - patents that may very well injure Google in the future. I find it really weird that they opted out of at least buying some "protection" - in the end I can only put it down to a matter of principle - which is something I do respect them for.
- CamperBob 15y ago
  It was probably a reasonable risk/return calculation on their part. What are the odds that they will be on the losing end of more than $3.14 billion in patent suits? How much interest can $3.14 billion earn between now and the time these hypothetical damages will have to be paid? The calculation might have gone differently if it hadn't been for the fairly recent SCOTUS decision that made it more difficult for a plaintiff to obtain a permanent injunction against distribution of an allegedly-infringing product ( http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/supreme_court_v.html http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/supreme_court_v.html ). If it hadn't been for that decision, the Nortel patents might have been worth $3 billion and then some.

fragsworth 15y ago

Except the customers who are even aware of these lawsuits probably account for such a small percentage of customers as to be negligible.

rapind 15y ago

One of the reasons Google may not have given into the pressure is due to their stock voting structure. Larry and Sergey have final say. Call me naive, but I actually think they try to stay away from playing in the filth even if everyone else is doing it.