4 ms·

Antitrust officials probing sale of patents to Google’s rivals

70 points by joelhaus 15y ago

kubrickslair 15y ago
There have been a couple of stories where the formation of consortiums (Rockstar and Rangers) was discussed. This article smells a bit like lazy journalism: >Then an unknown group calling itself Rockstar Bidco stepped forward with a whopping $4.5 billion offer — turning the Nortel sale into possibly the biggest intellectual-property auction of all time. The group, it turned out, was a coalition of Google’s biggest rivals in mobile phones.
- fleitz 15y ago
  Yup, the whole thing looks like industry standard PR. Poor little Google one would hardly know they're a giant company who is using their search monopoly to undercut smaller competitors in the smart phone market.
  - murz 15y ago
    > they're a giant company who is using their search monopoly to undercut smaller competitors in the smart phone market. How exactly is Google using their search monopoly to undercut smaller (or larger for that matter) competitors in the smart phone market?
    - fleitz 15y ago
      It's similar to MSFT vs. Borland, MSFT could undercut the compilers because they sold the OS. Compilers and developer tools are a complement to their core business. Smartphones are a complement to Google's search/adsense business. To Google making sure that people have cheap smartphones increases their search revenue. It also ensures there will be a smart phone platform with Google defaults. On an Apple or RIM device MSFT might have enough dough or other leverage to change a search default. And on WinPhone7 you can be pretty sure the search default will be Bing.
      - va_coder 15y ago
        It's not the same thing. MSFT would impede innovation with sneaky tactics (e.g. hide or change apis) in order to stay in the lead. I have yet to see Google do something like that. Google is winning by innovating.
      - NolF 15y ago
        It's free and open source, anyone can take the source code, modify it and sell it under their own name. In fact I've read that Baidu was doing exactly that. Some manufacturers have also changed the default search engine in Android to Bing.
    - kubrickslair 15y ago
      By giving away free OS and services they are killing the paid OS model and using the search monopoly to subsidize for it. But as I said below everybody does that in one way or another. Nothing specific about Google. It's just that some ways are more easily discernible than others.
  - kubrickslair 15y ago
    Everybody has their own moat, and they use theirs to win the game. Nothing specific about Google.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  I don't understand what was wrong with that sentence or what made it lazy journalism? Is it not one of the largest IP auctions of all time or something?
  - tzs 15y ago
    It wasn't an unknown group that won. As the auction moved past the limits of various bidders and they dropped out of direct bidding, they joined up with remaining bidders, and the winning group was such a group. (So was the losing group).
ajitk 15y ago
In a way, I am happy that Google was outbid in its bid for Nortel patents. This highlights how broken this system really is. It is being abused by big corporations to maintain their hegemony. It is allegedly a protection racket: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-google-and-android-must-deal-with-the-mobile-protection-racket/ http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-google-and-android-mu...
- tzs 15y ago
  > In a way, I am happy that Google was outbid in its bid for Nortel patents. This highlights how broken this system really is. It is being abused by big corporations to maintain their hegemony. That makes no sense, unless you think Google is not a big corporation.
  - ajitk 15y ago
    I did not say Google is not a big corporation. The emphasis is on patent system being used for by big corporations (against big or small entities) for a purpose that is not "good".
tzs 15y ago
Nice math fail: “Why is the portfolio worth five times more to this group collectively than it is to Google?” said Robert Skitol, an antitrust lawyer at the Drinker Biddle firm. The winners paid 5 times Google's opening bid. Generally, one's opening bid is far lower than what the item is worth to one. The proper comparison is with Google's final bid, not the opening bid. edit: fix grammar error.
- mbreese 15y ago
  Except, wasn't Google's final bid also in concert with Intel? And how many bids were there from the Apple, RIM, etc consortium? The math in the article isn't meant to be definitive, but rather to illustrate that what Google originally valued at $900M was finally sold for $4.5B. This is a big difference. It shows that not letting Google get the patents was worth more to the group than the actual patents themselves. That should raise red flags.
  - msbarnett 15y ago
    Except acting as thought Google thought the patents were worth $900M because that was their initial bid is daft -- you never lead with the maximum you're willing to pay, you lowball and try to stay as far away from your maximum as possible, since that is what you actually think it is worth, such that paying it would be breaking even, and paying more than it would be taking a loss.
flocial 15y ago
I'm not a Google supporter on this one but any situation where Apple is happy to join forces with Microsoft is a big red flag to me. We need a presence like Android for the mobile. It may not be truly open or free from liscensing fees but it's the only thing keeping the mobile landscape honest.
fuzionmonkey 15y ago
I saw this graphic in a WSJ piece a while ago. Obviously many patents are probably unrelated to mobile, but still. Pretty shocking: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN208A_norte_G_20110701181505.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN208A_norte_G_... That is some serious ganging-up on Google. Full-article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576418962301518284.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230458400457641...
shareme 15y ago
Somewhat miss-labeled title.. 1. No antitrust officials are probing the sale as of yet..one just got a letter of protest.. 2. No discussion of the details of split of the 'rewards'...other better articles have detailed what the split might be as far as what patents go to which group in the consortium .. 3. Bankruptcy court was in Canada which means any anti-trust action is by the EU and yet no details..and yet better other articles have detailed that the EU is in fact reviewing the sale. So what does this article offer? Lazy

70 points by joelhaus 15y ago

There have been a couple of stories where the formation of consortiums (Rockstar and Rangers) was discussed. This article smells a bit like lazy journalism: >Then an unknown group calling itself Rockstar Bidco stepped forward with a whopping $4.5 billion offer — turning the Nortel sale into possibly the biggest intellectual-property auction of all time. The group, it turned out, was a coalition of Google’s biggest rivals in mobile phones.

fleitz 15y ago
Yup, the whole thing looks like industry standard PR. Poor little Google one would hardly know they're a giant company who is using their search monopoly to undercut smaller competitors in the smart phone market.
- murz 15y ago
  > they're a giant company who is using their search monopoly to undercut smaller competitors in the smart phone market. How exactly is Google using their search monopoly to undercut smaller (or larger for that matter) competitors in the smart phone market?
  - fleitz 15y ago
    It's similar to MSFT vs. Borland, MSFT could undercut the compilers because they sold the OS. Compilers and developer tools are a complement to their core business. Smartphones are a complement to Google's search/adsense business. To Google making sure that people have cheap smartphones increases their search revenue. It also ensures there will be a smart phone platform with Google defaults. On an Apple or RIM device MSFT might have enough dough or other leverage to change a search default. And on WinPhone7 you can be pretty sure the search default will be Bing.
    - va_coder 15y ago
      It's not the same thing. MSFT would impede innovation with sneaky tactics (e.g. hide or change apis) in order to stay in the lead. I have yet to see Google do something like that. Google is winning by innovating.
    - NolF 15y ago
      It's free and open source, anyone can take the source code, modify it and sell it under their own name. In fact I've read that Baidu was doing exactly that. Some manufacturers have also changed the default search engine in Android to Bing.
  - kubrickslair 15y ago
    By giving away free OS and services they are killing the paid OS model and using the search monopoly to subsidize for it. But as I said below everybody does that in one way or another. Nothing specific about Google. It's just that some ways are more easily discernible than others.
- kubrickslair 15y ago
  Everybody has their own moat, and they use theirs to win the game. Nothing specific about Google.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
drivebyacct2 15y ago
I don't understand what was wrong with that sentence or what made it lazy journalism? Is it not one of the largest IP auctions of all time or something?
- tzs 15y ago
  It wasn't an unknown group that won. As the auction moved past the limits of various bidders and they dropped out of direct bidding, they joined up with remaining bidders, and the winning group was such a group. (So was the losing group).

ajitk 15y ago

In a way, I am happy that Google was outbid in its bid for Nortel patents. This highlights how broken this system really is. It is being abused by big corporations to maintain their hegemony. It is allegedly a protection racket: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-google-and-android-must-deal-with-the-mobile-protection-racket/ http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-google-and-android-mu...

tzs 15y ago
> In a way, I am happy that Google was outbid in its bid for Nortel patents. This highlights how broken this system really is. It is being abused by big corporations to maintain their hegemony. That makes no sense, unless you think Google is not a big corporation.
- ajitk 15y ago
  I did not say Google is not a big corporation. The emphasis is on patent system being used for by big corporations (against big or small entities) for a purpose that is not "good".

tzs 15y ago

Nice math fail: “Why is the portfolio worth five times more to this group collectively than it is to Google?” said Robert Skitol, an antitrust lawyer at the Drinker Biddle firm. The winners paid 5 times Google's opening bid. Generally, one's opening bid is far lower than what the item is worth to one. The proper comparison is with Google's final bid, not the opening bid. edit: fix grammar error.

mbreese 15y ago
Except, wasn't Google's final bid also in concert with Intel? And how many bids were there from the Apple, RIM, etc consortium? The math in the article isn't meant to be definitive, but rather to illustrate that what Google originally valued at $900M was finally sold for $4.5B. This is a big difference. It shows that not letting Google get the patents was worth more to the group than the actual patents themselves. That should raise red flags.
- msbarnett 15y ago
  Except acting as thought Google thought the patents were worth $900M because that was their initial bid is daft -- you never lead with the maximum you're willing to pay, you lowball and try to stay as far away from your maximum as possible, since that is what you actually think it is worth, such that paying it would be breaking even, and paying more than it would be taking a loss.

flocial 15y ago

I'm not a Google supporter on this one but any situation where Apple is happy to join forces with Microsoft is a big red flag to me. We need a presence like Android for the mobile. It may not be truly open or free from liscensing fees but it's the only thing keeping the mobile landscape honest.

fuzionmonkey 15y ago

I saw this graphic in a WSJ piece a while ago. Obviously many patents are probably unrelated to mobile, but still. Pretty shocking: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN208A_norte_G_20110701181505.jpg http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BN208A_norte_G_... That is some serious ganging-up on Google. Full-article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576418962301518284.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230458400457641...

shareme 15y ago

Somewhat miss-labeled title.. 1. No antitrust officials are probing the sale as of yet..one just got a letter of protest.. 2. No discussion of the details of split of the 'rewards'...other better articles have detailed what the split might be as far as what patents go to which group in the consortium .. 3. Bankruptcy court was in Canada which means any anti-trust action is by the EU and yet no details..and yet better other articles have detailed that the EU is in fact reviewing the sale. So what does this article offer? Lazy