2 ms·
"That is, Google could easily have gone higher with its bid: why didn't it?" ... Rich people get rich by spending wisely. Just because Google -has- money doe
by wccrawford 15y ago
"That is, Google could easily have gone higher with its bid: why didn't it?"
... Rich people get rich by spending wisely. Just because Google -has- money doesn't mean it should spend it on the first thing that comes along.
If they didn't buy something, it's because they thought the price was too high for the value it brought to them. It's pretty simple economics.
- NolF 15y agoThe Apple consortium with Microsoft, RIM et al. can afford to go much higher up (have up to $100billion combined in cash. Intel+Google do have large deep pockets but how far could they take the cost up? Also wouldn't making it more expensive provided an added incentive to litigate or impose a licencing scheme to pay for the costs At the end of the day, Google has to start to have a far more proactive approach protecting Android and Android related cases that essentially are forcing manufacturers to pay up for licences essentially for patent protection via Microsoft :/
- dexen 15y agoThis. Also, the value of patent pool may be vastly different to the consortium than to Google. Basically, the value reflects how the buyer evaluates competitor's competetitive strength. In this case, it may be the consortium considers Google a very strong competitor, while Google considers the consortium a somewhat less troubling competition.
- Daniel14 15y agoOf course, but what I think the author meant to say, was that owning those patents should have been worth more than $4.5 billion to Google, as they are crucial to Android's success. And deplorably, I think he's right.