11 ms·

Google Threw A Punch, Microsoft Fires Back With A Missile

293 points by InfinityX0 15y ago

jdp23 15y ago
Well-crafted tweets by MS execs. Pass the popcorn!
- jarin 15y ago
  http://cl.ly/0A3R3e0d0H1o3k1q3w3E http://cl.ly/0A3R3e0d0H1o3k1q3w3E
  - trezor 15y ago
    Please. This is hacker news, not fark nor reddit. Just don't.
- myko 15y ago
  Not really. Google needs these patents to protect themselves from suits by MS and Apple, how could they make a cross-licensing deal if they co-owned these patents with the very companies they are trying to protect themselves against?
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    Two points: 1) Apple has never sued google, to my knowledge, and there are no active lawsuits currently. I'm not aware of any suits from Microsoft either. 2) IF Apple were to sue google, it would be over Patents resulting from Apple developed technology, not patents Apple bought defensively. I'm unaware of any case of Apple suing a company for violating a patent that Apple bought. However, Apple does sue companies for violating patents on Apple's inventions. Apple is not a patent troll, they are simply protecting their inventions. If Google had chosen to enter the bidding, the terms of the agreement could easily have included a cross-licensing deal, as these are how these things are often done. In fact, entering the bidding with these companies would have been the cheapest and most effective way to neutralize any claim they might have had on Google over these patents. If Google had entered the group they would have gotten a license on them (why else would google contribute to the bid?) and the cost of that would have been less than bidding for the whole thing by itself, by definition. I think google wanted the whole thing for itself, in the case of Nortel, and lost, and is now crying foul because it didn't get its way in an auction it didn't take very seriously in the first place.
    - fpgeek 15y ago
      We know for a fact that Google didn't want "the whole thing for itself, in the case of Nortel". They teamed up with Intel on their final bid.
    - weavejester 15y ago
      Apple is not a patent troll, they are simply protecting their inventions. Apple's patents, like many software patents, tend to involve obvious techniques and algorithms that have been carefully obfuscated by patent lawyers. Using such patents offensively is not so much about protecting Apple's innovations; it's more about preventing competition. This is beneficial for Apple, but bad for consumers and the overall health of the market.
  - ch0wn 15y ago
    Why is this being downvoted? I assume that this is a question that many might have, if they're not familiar with the complete details. It's certainly discussion-worthy and thus shouldn't be downvoted.
  - jdp23 15y ago
    Belated response: I didn't mean the MS execs are necessarily right; I just meant that their tweets are very well done -- getting the message across very pithily.
Joakal 15y ago
"Bid with us or it's a shame that you didn't join the club.." Or am I misunderstanding this article?
- tzs 15y ago
  Google is saying Microsoft et al bought the Novell patents to keep Google from having access to them. Google is trying to imply that this is so the patents can be used against Google. Microsoft is pointing out that Google was offered a chance to be part of the buying group. That would have given Google access to them and precluded them being used against Google. This makes it very likely that the buying group was in fact buying the patents for defensive purposes, rather than to go after Google.
  - myko 15y ago
    Not really. It's smooth PR by Microsoft which is apparently working, but the reality is Google is looking for these patents to create cross-licensing deals to protect themselves from current and future patent suits from companies like Microsoft and Apple - cross-licensing deals that Google could not do if they co-owned these patents with said companies.
    - nl 15y ago
      That's not necessarily the case. Google could have tried to do a deal to bid and be able to indemnify anyone it wanted. Microsoft might or might not have been open to bidding on those terms, but it seems Google didn't even try. Weird indemnity clauses are fairly common in patent deals. For example, Microsoft was already indemnified against the Nortel patents, and yet bid anyway.
      - myko 15y ago
        From what I can tell the Novell patents were not a prime motivator to light Google's ire (these are the patents Microsoft says Google did not want to purchase with them). I see no evidence or statement from Microsoft saying they offered to team up with Google (and Apple, and RIM, and various other companies) in the purchase of the Nortel patents.
barista 15y ago
whatevar this ain't seeing the front page of HN.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
ck2 15y ago
By the end of this decade Microsoft is going to become the next Yahoo. Their biggest asset all these years was being the default OS on the majority of PCs sold in the USA and around most of the world. As other free options catchup and become much, much more robust this decade (and already most portable non-x86 devices ship without the need for ANYTHING from Microsoft) they become irrelevant. Lawsuits and patent royalties will be all they have left by 2020.
- ck2 15y ago
  Do Microsoft employees read HN or are people going to explain their downvotes to this logic?
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Honestly, reading it the reason for the downvotes seem obvious. And unlike most people who ask "why the downvotes?" in this case they seem justified. Your original post was almost completely unrelated to the story at hand. It would be more appropriate in the original Google blog post thread, but even there not really appropriate. It's more fitting a story about the future of Microsoft. I think the downvotes were meant to say, "you're off topic". Post about how MS's response wasn't credible or legit or whatever. But talking about their OS position over the past 2 decades is really kind of left field.
    - ck2 15y ago
      Ah okay, thanks for explaining - I didn't get it because instead of the details I was thinking about the overall picture of Microsoft's relevancy - everyone seems interested in this "battle" but I feel the whole point is moot because Microsoft is no longer the "world power" they once were - this strikes me as "last grasps" of power. (and this comes from someone who has been around before windows and www, and used Microsoft products almost exclusively back then, including compilers)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
drivebyacct2 15y ago
I asked about this on Twitter to deaf ears. Isn't Microsoft mixing up Novell and Nortel? Even if Microsoft did offer to partner on the Novell patents, the accusations are being levied more directly at the Nortel buy by Microsoft, Apple, etc. Maybe I'm missing the point, or it's not fair to think that Nortel vs Novell makes a difference. I really have no idea. I'm just wondering aloud. I don't really get how this is all perceived in a legal sense or in terms of how this affects Google's statement today. I get it's relevancy, but does it make Google's position less tenable? Maybe I'm just naive because they support the position I was already in favor of. edit: I guess my other post which is more speculative would be the response to "they also mentioned Novell in the post".
- YooLi 15y ago
  From Google's googleblog post: "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;..."
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Read Google's original blog posting by David Drummond again: They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them. We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms They made it about the Novell AND Nortel patents. In some regards they need both to show a pattern of collusion. Rather they have a situation where THEY turned down Microsoft to go it alone. Makes their case a lot weaker.
  - stock_toaster 15y ago
    > We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms This also reads to me like Google wants the same thing with this new portfolio. "We figured we could get it cheaper if we let you buy it first, then complain to the DOJ afterwards and get cheaper licensing".
drivebyacct2 15y ago
Again, re-reading, it seems like Google's major complaint was in relation to the Nortel patents because of the ridiculous price that they sold for (multiples of what their expected worth was). Even if Google missed out on joining an effective patent troll consortium, is that really the way innovation and industry should be encouraged? It seems imminent that Apple will benefit from Android via Samsung, and Microsoft is already from Android via HTC, Motorola. Is it possible that Google did try to buy them to secure Android. If they had such a large set of patents, wouldn't that have given them and their hardware partners significant leverage against Apple and/or Microsoft? It seems like a defensive pattern. Is it possible that Android's success will feed Google's competitors who've joined together to ensure their ability to leach off of Android via patents? Doesn't that make Google's interests fundamentally juxtaposed from Apple/Microsoft's who will profit simply from patent imbalances?
- Terretta 15y ago
  > Google's major complaint was in relation to the Nortel patents because of the ridiculous price that they sold for (multiples of what their expected worth was) I found Google's position on this to be especially lame. "These were worth only 1 billion, and they sold for nearly 5 times that!", omitting that Google bid "nearly" 4 times that. (Where "nearly" is defined as rounding up.) Why is four times "expected worth" okay, but 5 times isn't okay? Because they lost.
chc 15y ago
The Microsoft tweets seem to (probably intentionally) ignore the obvious reason why Google would want the patents — to create a mutually-assured destruction scenario that convinces Apple and Microsoft to get off its back. Sharing the patents with Apple and Microsoft would keep Google at a disadvantage just like not having them would.
- MikeCapone 15y ago
  Indeed, the patents used for defense have to be different from the patents you are attacked with. Sharing patents means they can't attack you with those, but if they have a lot more other patents, you still aren't protected.
- bonch 15y ago
  That requires a level of trust in the motivations of a gigantic megacorp that many aren't willing to give, perhaps justifiably so. Google was good at playing "We're the good guys" as the geeky little search company ten years ago, but that company doesn't exist today. As TechCrunch pointed out, Google can't keep pretending Microsoft has a pattern of behavior of partnering up with rivals to hurt Google if Microsoft offered to team up with Google and Google refused because they wanted all the patents for themselves.
orky56 15y ago
Google seems to have one foot in the water and the other out. They lose their credibility either way. They bid a high amount ($3.14bil) in the Nortel bid and went alone by their choosing in the Novell bid. Their press is just spinning the story AND their strategy based on unforeseen outcomes. I get it that they are using patents just as leverage to keep Android free or as cheap as possible. In the end however, they are competing with other mobile platforms for market share based on the best combination of price, quality, and user experience. It's anyone's game and as long as it's legal, there are no rules. Edited the Nortel and Novell discrepancy.
- doe88 15y ago
  I don't remember exactly if at their last bid they were alone, but one thing I recall to have read is that at least at one point they did bid teaming along with Intel.
  - orky56 15y ago
    I apologize but I was referring to the OP's article about Google getting the offer to team up with MS but choosing to go alone at it, for the Novell deal. I combined the $3.14bil Nortel bid with the info in the article about the Novell bid. My mistake. Will update my previous post. Novell and Nortel, this patent stuff is already confusing and these names don't help! jk
stewsnooze 15y ago
Seriously. Front page news. A few people exchange emails. Then a deal isn't done. pah.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Maybe you missed this 300+ point, 260+ comment thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2842683 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2842683 When there's a reply this pointed to a story that popular -- I'd expect it to make front page.
Gaussian 15y ago
Google: Bidding pi x 10^9 no longer looks so adorably wonky...
hristov 15y ago
That does not mean anything. Yes MS may have asked Google to partner with them to buy the patents but no-one knows what the terms were. A good attorney can make an agreement that allows Google to be sued on the patents even if they are co-owners. Or the agreement may say that any Android phone manufacturer can be sued on the patents by Microsoft, and Google does not have the power to give those manufacturers licenses. So an undisclosed offer made in private does not mean much. If Microsoft had made their offer public they may use it to make a point, but as things stand now this supposed offer is best ignored. PS: I should also note that this "we made them a generous offer and they refused" statement is a trick often used by PR people and politicians to muddy the water.
- 2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
  "we made them a generous offer and they refused" Who said that? I cannot find that in the tweet or the article.
  - hristov 15y ago
    The tweet basically said "we made them an offer and they refused". They never mentioned "generous"; I must admit I added that for effect, but my original point stands.
    - econgeeker 15y ago
      It was an offer to talk, not terms, as is made clear in the email. Your point is lying dead in a ditch.
      - hristov 15y ago
        That was not clear in the email. Either you are privy to some undisclosed information or you are imagining things.
- econgeeker 15y ago
  You're in error. This was MSFT offering for google to talk about joining in the bidding. Google turned them down without knowing what the terms were, because the terms hadn't even been discussed. This was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms. Google has been caught with its senior counsel telling a blatant lie, in public. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see people trying to spin it so hard...
sriramk 15y ago
Ex-MSFT employee here, enjoying the fact that I can comment on HN on MSFT legal affairs for once :). I love Frank.X.Shaw's move here (hiring him from Waggner Edstorm was one of MSFT's best moves). Google is essentially trying to spin a situation where they were invited to be a part of a bid as a anti-competitive move. I'm slightly surprised that Google didn't see this coming - Drummond must have known that any public spat would lead to MSFT digging up any email threads between the two companies, especially those which make it seem like MSFT is trying to reach out to Google.
- orky56 15y ago
  These accusations are almost like patent bids. Google strikes first but Microsoft wins. Also, Google made the first move with this type of grievance. They have the luxury of setting the tone and ensuring that all other parties only have a chance to defend themselves rather than achieve anything greater than when this all started.
  - tintin 15y ago
    "Google strikes first but Microsoft wins." Somehow I've got the feeling everybody is going to win. Google made the patent problem very public. This spark might light the fire of a revolution.
    - euroclydon 15y ago
      Remember when there was talk about Obama modifying the terms of underwater mortgage holders, but it was illegal? My non-lawyer opinion is that's what we'll see with patents -- future software patents may become difficult to obtain, but existing ones will have to be litigated individually.
    - napierzaza 15y ago
      Stop dreaming. Read Googles blog post. Google wants to be secure by buying up patents and over turn the Nortel patent sale. They are just whining that they don't have a toy too. Nobody is talking about overthrowing the patent system except for maybe people on HN. Google very seriously wants to be a player in this and have a patent portfolio. Read their blog post's last paragraph.
extension 15y ago
"Sorry Google but we offered to collude with you and you turned us down, so we had to collude against you" Is this how rotten Microsoft has become? They don't even grasp what they are being accused of. EDIT: I really wish people would reply with their opinion rather than just downvoting. Or at least do both. I thought it was an interesting observation that I haven't seen anyone make: Google complains about Microsoft's ethics and they respond with a point about strategy. Do they even understand the difference?
- amartya916 15y ago
  More like, joint bidders had a greater chance of getting the bounty, Google chose to ignore Microsoft's proposal. Apple took them up on the offer. That's how childish Google has become (or rather their legal and PR teams).
  - extension 15y ago
    I don't understand why Google not wanting to team up with MS weakens their argument. If anything, it's quite consistent with it. But one way or another, what ultimately happened is that MS teamed up with Google's competitors to bully them with bullshit patents. That Google may have had a chance to avoid it doesn't make it any less wrong.
    - econgeeker 15y ago
      The only reason to not team up with Microsoft, et. al, is if google wanted to use the patents against them. If google simply wanted to be immune to claims from the Novell patents, they could have joined the group and saved money (vs. bidding by themselves against the group.) Further, you make two assertions here: "MS teamed up with Google's competitors to bully them with bullshit patents. " You haven't shown that MSFT has bullied google, nor that the patents are "bullshit". If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior art.
      - VanL 15y ago
afsina 15y ago
I believe reaching to Google from MS was a planned move. And it worked.
- jan_g 15y ago
  I have the same sentiment. My guess is that MS offered to team up before all the bidding took place. Google refused, because they wanted to have it all. After the bidding started, Microsoft teamed up with Apple and others. From Microsoft point of view, they win the patents either way. So, bad planning from Google, good planning from Microsoft.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    I would imagine from Microsoft's point of view Apple is "safe" since they have known behavior and agreements with Microsoft already. I do wonder what Microsoft thinks of HTC these days.
- masklinn 15y ago
  > I believe reaching to Google from MS was a planned move. Of course it was a planned move, it's not like a guy wakes up in the morning and calls a significant competitor to offer a joint bid on a billion+ patent trove while buttering his toasts. > And it worked. The only way for it not to work would be if Google had won their bids. As long as MSFT's joint bid got the prize they got out happy. Google tried to play a hard game, and they blew it.
FameofLight 15y ago
Googles make a large hue and cry whenever its free enterprise are in danger. Same happened with bing story. All bogus claims. People who spend large amount of money in creating new technology want to have something in return. Every product can't go by freemium model.
- ch0wn 15y ago
  You don't understand software patents.
akkartik 15y ago
Rebuttal: http://fury.com/2011/08/twitter-is-the-new-soundbyte-and-thats-not-good http://fury.com/2011/08/twitter-is-the-new-soundbyte-and-tha...
- sriramk 15y ago
  His post doesn't address this - Google bidding alongside MSFT and winning on these patents would have taken these patents off the table as far as any future litigation goes, basically making these one less set of patents for either Google or MSFT to worry about. Does he expect MSFT to somehow help Google build a defensive portfolio against it?
g123g 15y ago
These behind the scenes emails raise a question in my mind. On what other issues these companies are covertly colluding with each other which we don't know. One obvious thing could be some kind of silent agreement on not competing with each other on employee salaries etc. to keep them in check. There could be more like trying not to increase valuations of startups they are trying to acquire.
- econgeeker 15y ago
  Is it really covert? In the case of the Nortel bids, the bidders were getting government approval before bidding, and it was made public after the fact who was in the groups. I'm not sure that removing anonymity from bidders is a good thing or not. I mean, if you know who the other bidders are, that would affect your strategy, removing some purity from the auction process, wouldn't it? But, maybe you feel I'm sidestepping your real issue, so let me make another point: In any situation where companies might collude like this, they're effectively creating a cartel. Say, in the case of the employee salaries that you mention. The problem with a cartel is that there is always an incentive for a member of the cartel to violate the agreement. For instance, if MSFT, Apple, Facebook and Google agreed to cap software developer salaries, then Google (or one of the others) has an incentive to secretly violate that agreement to get the best employees, right? Pretty soon the cartel falls apart, or the agreement has no effect. The stronger the agreement, the more incentive there is to violate it. Further, imagine if they were successful and kept salaries below a market rate-- this would give a huge boost to any of their competitors who were willing to pay market rates, right? They'd only be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, driving the best employees to other companies. This is why cartels don't really work, or at least aren't sustainable for very long.
tensor 15y ago
I think the take home message of all of this, more than ever, is that software patents are damaging to innovation and an overall detriment to the industry. These companies should be competing on performance and features, not with lawyers over whether a linked list is an innovation (example taken out of context, but some of these patents are no better than the multiply linked list patent covered a year ago).
- econgeeker 15y ago
  I posit that android would not be on the market in the touch-screen form it is now, if Apple hadn't made its inventions public due to the patent process. If you consider android innovative, then the patent process saved google the 7+ years Apple spent developing the iPhone and allowed them to get to the market much quicker with a touch screen phone (they'd been previously working on a blackberry style OS for android.) I am the inventor of two software patents. One of which involved solving the visual glitches that appear in online games due to the high latency of playing over a modem. This patent involved a lot of timing issues, and was pretty narrow. However it was claimed on slashdot that we "patented the idea of online gaming!!!!" Later, in a discussion list, they claimed we'd patented the idea of IRC! People seem to presume that patents are on ideas, and that people are patenting really obvious ideas. In the case of the patents I've been involved in, that is not what has happened. In fact, the portrayal of what was covered by the patent didn't match the patent at all, and it is clear that the people putting forward those patents as examples of bad patents were, frankly misrepresenting them. Every time I've seen a bogus patent claim and actually read the patent, I've found this to be the case as well. (I don't remember the linked-list example, so haven't read that particular one.) I'm not saying that bogus patents don't exist. I'm sure you can get things by the examiner. But the system has a solution for this-- if your patent is bogus then it won't stand up in court. If prior art exists, then you run the risk of spending a lot of money, only to have the patent nullified when someone presents prior art. (And I mean real prior art, not the kind of stuff that people claim is prior art, like the claim that IRC is prior art for solving clock jitter in 3D online games) The patent system, as with anything else that relies on the meager US court system, is expensive... but there is no need for reform, that I can see, as all these allegedly bogus patents would be quickly thrown out if they really were as obvious as is claimed and if there really was the abundance of prior art, as is claimed. Google is certainly capable, both financially and intellectually, of getting a bogus patent thrown out. There's no reason they should be calling on the federal government to intervene with a political "solution" on their behalf... unless they know that there isn't actually prior art and the patents are, in fact, legitimate. In fact, I think googles call for reform is an admission that the patents aren't bogus after all. Edit: I didn't change the text above, but want to clarify- I'm responsible for some claims on one of these patents, though not named as an inventor (I didn't realize the significance at the time.) For the other I am the sole inventor, but it hasn't been brought forth as "bogus" in a public forum yet, though, for those who don't read it carefully, they could easily make the claim. This is why I'm being vague about the specific patents. Previous experience on Hacker News tells me that if I wasn't vague the topic would turn to how those patents are so obviously "bogus" (to people who haven't read more than the headline)... and well, frankly my name is on them. I really don't to be discriminated against in business for having a pr-intellectual property position. The current climate makes that fear seem pretty legitimate.
jigs_up 15y ago
Mobile companies such as HTC, Motorla and Samsung are being forced to pay Microsoft licensing fees for their Android phones because of patents Microsoft owns. Google needs its own arsenal of patents in order to prevent the situation from getting worse. How is Android supposed to prosper if mobile companies are being forced to pay Microsoft to use it? Owning the patents jointly with Microsoft gives Google nothing to use against Microsoft, therefore defeating the whole purpose of owning the patents.
Hyena 15y ago
Doesn't this suggest that MS tried to organize a cartel to put a lock on the wireless industry? The major players all coming together to purchase patent portfolios and agreeing not to sue each other over it sure smells like an anti-trust violation.
pagejim 15y ago
can someone throw light on what these patents hold?
rbanffy 15y ago
I am confused. Why would Google want to jointly bid on patents in a way they could not be used to protect itself and its partners from Microsoft? Microsoft's council can't be so naïve. Edit: by refusing to participate, Google indicated that either they wanted the patents in order to be able to defend against Microsoft or that they didn't find them worth the effort. The proposal could pretty much be the way Microsoft used to measure Google's interest and intentions
- thoughtsimple 15y ago
  While you are almost certainly correct you are missing the point about Google's blog post. The lawyer who wrote is demonstrably lying about the situation. "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;" If Google was offered a chance to bid along with Microsoft, how is Microsoft trying to make sure Google didn't get them? While it may not have been in Google's best interest to partner with Microsoft, they can hardly argue in good faith that Microsoft is trying to withhold those patents from Google in some sort of conspiracy.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    You assume the offer was real and made in good faith. If, however, Microsoft offered Google the chance to jointly bid without any intention of really doing so, Google's interpretation still holds.
  - yohui 15y ago
    Microsoft et al. don't want Google to have the patents usuable against them. Either outbidding or co-owning works. Microsoft had enough patents that it was more important Google did not have the patents for itself than for Microsoft to add to its own arsenal. Google might have instead accused Microsoft of denying it leverage, in the face of Microsoft et al.'s mountain of existing patents, but at the time that probably seemed a verbose way of making the same point: that Android's competitors would like to kill it with patents. (We haven't list sight of the fact that B&N, HTC, and others have been targeted for using Android, while the same can't be said for WP7 licensees, have we?)
sek 15y ago
Microsoft attacked Android Phone producers, Google needs to defend them "against" Microsoft. A bidding with Microsoft wouldn't make sense at all.
iamelgringo 15y ago
Google is going to need to hire a lot more lawyers these days... anti-trust inquiries against themselves, weak patent portfolio... Gonna be really interesting to watch.
aaronsw 15y ago
One interesting possibility: Google planned to only use the patents defensively but the joint bid would have required them participating in offensive action, which they refuse to do.
- jstedfast 15y ago
  That is obviously not the case as Microsoft immediately sold back the Novell patents to Attachmate and so cannot participate in any offensive action.
napierzaza 15y ago
Obvious lies. Google is the lone white knight who is alone in a forrest full of trolls. Who wants to collect and sell our personal information...
ams6110 15y ago
In two large organizations A and B, how likely is it that someone at B can find an email from a person at A to a person at B that appears to contradict some assertion by some other person at A?
blinkingled 15y ago
Google's punch was related to Nortel Patents, Microsoft's misfired missile carried Novell patents as the warhead. "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no." So Google may still have a point that Nortel patents were gobbled up by Apple and MSFT to strangle Android just as the Novell ones are.
goatforce5 15y ago
> Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation. I think that 'instead of' should be a 'As well as'.
yalurker 15y ago
Google says the group of major players colluding together in a joint bid for patents is anti-competitive. Google did not want to join this anti-competitive collusion. How is this inconsistent, shocking, or bad? Couldn't the simple explanation be "If we join forces with Microsoft and Apple to jointly buy these patents, the DoJ is going to come down on all of us for illegal anti-competitive behavior"? Why are people acting like Google did something wrong by not wanting to join the cartel that they are now publicly saying is anti-competitive and that the DoJ should impose limits on?
tomica 15y ago
anyone remember when AAPL claimed "we just wish to protect our innovation" (i think it was about the HTC suit). well, how does buying novel/nortel patents protect your innovation? how does joining with MSFT to keep patents away from GOOG protect your innovation?

293 points by InfinityX0 15y ago

jdp23 15y ago

Well-crafted tweets by MS execs. Pass the popcorn!

jarin 15y ago
http://cl.ly/0A3R3e0d0H1o3k1q3w3E http://cl.ly/0A3R3e0d0H1o3k1q3w3E
- trezor 15y ago
  Please. This is hacker news, not fark nor reddit. Just don't.
myko 15y ago
Not really. Google needs these patents to protect themselves from suits by MS and Apple, how could they make a cross-licensing deal if they co-owned these patents with the very companies they are trying to protect themselves against?
- econgeeker 15y ago
  Two points: 1) Apple has never sued google, to my knowledge, and there are no active lawsuits currently. I'm not aware of any suits from Microsoft either. 2) IF Apple were to sue google, it would be over Patents resulting from Apple developed technology, not patents Apple bought defensively. I'm unaware of any case of Apple suing a company for violating a patent that Apple bought. However, Apple does sue companies for violating patents on Apple's inventions. Apple is not a patent troll, they are simply protecting their inventions. If Google had chosen to enter the bidding, the terms of the agreement could easily have included a cross-licensing deal, as these are how these things are often done. In fact, entering the bidding with these companies would have been the cheapest and most effective way to neutralize any claim they might have had on Google over these patents. If Google had entered the group they would have gotten a license on them (why else would google contribute to the bid?) and the cost of that would have been less than bidding for the whole thing by itself, by definition. I think google wanted the whole thing for itself, in the case of Nortel, and lost, and is now crying foul because it didn't get its way in an auction it didn't take very seriously in the first place.
  - fpgeek 15y ago
    We know for a fact that Google didn't want "the whole thing for itself, in the case of Nortel". They teamed up with Intel on their final bid.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    Apple is not a patent troll, they are simply protecting their inventions. Apple's patents, like many software patents, tend to involve obvious techniques and algorithms that have been carefully obfuscated by patent lawyers. Using such patents offensively is not so much about protecting Apple's innovations; it's more about preventing competition. This is beneficial for Apple, but bad for consumers and the overall health of the market.
- ch0wn 15y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? I assume that this is a question that many might have, if they're not familiar with the complete details. It's certainly discussion-worthy and thus shouldn't be downvoted.
- jdp23 15y ago
  Belated response: I didn't mean the MS execs are necessarily right; I just meant that their tweets are very well done -- getting the message across very pithily.

Joakal 15y ago

"Bid with us or it's a shame that you didn't join the club.." Or am I misunderstanding this article?

tzs 15y ago
Google is saying Microsoft et al bought the Novell patents to keep Google from having access to them. Google is trying to imply that this is so the patents can be used against Google. Microsoft is pointing out that Google was offered a chance to be part of the buying group. That would have given Google access to them and precluded them being used against Google. This makes it very likely that the buying group was in fact buying the patents for defensive purposes, rather than to go after Google.
- myko 15y ago
  Not really. It's smooth PR by Microsoft which is apparently working, but the reality is Google is looking for these patents to create cross-licensing deals to protect themselves from current and future patent suits from companies like Microsoft and Apple - cross-licensing deals that Google could not do if they co-owned these patents with said companies.
  - nl 15y ago
    That's not necessarily the case. Google could have tried to do a deal to bid and be able to indemnify anyone it wanted. Microsoft might or might not have been open to bidding on those terms, but it seems Google didn't even try. Weird indemnity clauses are fairly common in patent deals. For example, Microsoft was already indemnified against the Nortel patents, and yet bid anyway.
    - myko 15y ago
      From what I can tell the Novell patents were not a prime motivator to light Google's ire (these are the patents Microsoft says Google did not want to purchase with them). I see no evidence or statement from Microsoft saying they offered to team up with Google (and Apple, and RIM, and various other companies) in the purchase of the Nortel patents.

barista 15y ago

whatevar this ain't seeing the front page of HN.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

ck2 15y ago

By the end of this decade Microsoft is going to become the next Yahoo. Their biggest asset all these years was being the default OS on the majority of PCs sold in the USA and around most of the world. As other free options catchup and become much, much more robust this decade (and already most portable non-x86 devices ship without the need for ANYTHING from Microsoft) they become irrelevant. Lawsuits and patent royalties will be all they have left by 2020.

ck2 15y ago
Do Microsoft employees read HN or are people going to explain their downvotes to this logic?
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Honestly, reading it the reason for the downvotes seem obvious. And unlike most people who ask "why the downvotes?" in this case they seem justified. Your original post was almost completely unrelated to the story at hand. It would be more appropriate in the original Google blog post thread, but even there not really appropriate. It's more fitting a story about the future of Microsoft. I think the downvotes were meant to say, "you're off topic". Post about how MS's response wasn't credible or legit or whatever. But talking about their OS position over the past 2 decades is really kind of left field.
  - ck2 15y ago
    Ah okay, thanks for explaining - I didn't get it because instead of the details I was thinking about the overall picture of Microsoft's relevancy - everyone seems interested in this "battle" but I feel the whole point is moot because Microsoft is no longer the "world power" they once were - this strikes me as "last grasps" of power. (and this comes from someone who has been around before windows and www, and used Microsoft products almost exclusively back then, including compilers)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

drivebyacct2 15y ago

I asked about this on Twitter to deaf ears. Isn't Microsoft mixing up Novell and Nortel? Even if Microsoft did offer to partner on the Novell patents, the accusations are being levied more directly at the Nortel buy by Microsoft, Apple, etc. Maybe I'm missing the point, or it's not fair to think that Nortel vs Novell makes a difference. I really have no idea. I'm just wondering aloud. I don't really get how this is all perceived in a legal sense or in terms of how this affects Google's statement today. I get it's relevancy, but does it make Google's position less tenable? Maybe I'm just naive because they support the position I was already in favor of. edit: I guess my other post which is more speculative would be the response to "they also mentioned Novell in the post".

YooLi 15y ago
From Google's googleblog post: "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;..."
kenjackson 15y ago
Read Google's original blog posting by David Drummond again: They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them. We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms They made it about the Novell AND Nortel patents. In some regards they need both to show a pattern of collusion. Rather they have a situation where THEY turned down Microsoft to go it alone. Makes their case a lot weaker.
- stock_toaster 15y ago
  > We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms This also reads to me like Google wants the same thing with this new portfolio. "We figured we could get it cheaper if we let you buy it first, then complain to the DOJ afterwards and get cheaper licensing".

drivebyacct2 15y ago

Again, re-reading, it seems like Google's major complaint was in relation to the Nortel patents because of the ridiculous price that they sold for (multiples of what their expected worth was). Even if Google missed out on joining an effective patent troll consortium, is that really the way innovation and industry should be encouraged? It seems imminent that Apple will benefit from Android via Samsung, and Microsoft is already from Android via HTC, Motorola. Is it possible that Google did try to buy them to secure Android. If they had such a large set of patents, wouldn't that have given them and their hardware partners significant leverage against Apple and/or Microsoft? It seems like a defensive pattern. Is it possible that Android's success will feed Google's competitors who've joined together to ensure their ability to leach off of Android via patents? Doesn't that make Google's interests fundamentally juxtaposed from Apple/Microsoft's who will profit simply from patent imbalances?

Terretta 15y ago
> Google's major complaint was in relation to the Nortel patents because of the ridiculous price that they sold for (multiples of what their expected worth was) I found Google's position on this to be especially lame. "These were worth only 1 billion, and they sold for nearly 5 times that!", omitting that Google bid "nearly" 4 times that. (Where "nearly" is defined as rounding up.) Why is four times "expected worth" okay, but 5 times isn't okay? Because they lost.

chc 15y ago

The Microsoft tweets seem to (probably intentionally) ignore the obvious reason why Google would want the patents — to create a mutually-assured destruction scenario that convinces Apple and Microsoft to get off its back. Sharing the patents with Apple and Microsoft would keep Google at a disadvantage just like not having them would.

MikeCapone 15y ago
Indeed, the patents used for defense have to be different from the patents you are attacked with. Sharing patents means they can't attack you with those, but if they have a lot more other patents, you still aren't protected.
bonch 15y ago
That requires a level of trust in the motivations of a gigantic megacorp that many aren't willing to give, perhaps justifiably so. Google was good at playing "We're the good guys" as the geeky little search company ten years ago, but that company doesn't exist today. As TechCrunch pointed out, Google can't keep pretending Microsoft has a pattern of behavior of partnering up with rivals to hurt Google if Microsoft offered to team up with Google and Google refused because they wanted all the patents for themselves.

orky56 15y ago

Google seems to have one foot in the water and the other out. They lose their credibility either way. They bid a high amount ($3.14bil) in the Nortel bid and went alone by their choosing in the Novell bid. Their press is just spinning the story AND their strategy based on unforeseen outcomes. I get it that they are using patents just as leverage to keep Android free or as cheap as possible. In the end however, they are competing with other mobile platforms for market share based on the best combination of price, quality, and user experience. It's anyone's game and as long as it's legal, there are no rules. Edited the Nortel and Novell discrepancy.

doe88 15y ago
I don't remember exactly if at their last bid they were alone, but one thing I recall to have read is that at least at one point they did bid teaming along with Intel.
- orky56 15y ago
  I apologize but I was referring to the OP's article about Google getting the offer to team up with MS but choosing to go alone at it, for the Novell deal. I combined the $3.14bil Nortel bid with the info in the article about the Novell bid. My mistake. Will update my previous post. Novell and Nortel, this patent stuff is already confusing and these names don't help! jk

stewsnooze 15y ago

Seriously. Front page news. A few people exchange emails. Then a deal isn't done. pah.

kenjackson 15y ago
Maybe you missed this 300+ point, 260+ comment thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2842683 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2842683 When there's a reply this pointed to a story that popular -- I'd expect it to make front page.

Gaussian 15y ago

Google: Bidding pi x 10^9 no longer looks so adorably wonky...

hristov 15y ago

That does not mean anything. Yes MS may have asked Google to partner with them to buy the patents but no-one knows what the terms were. A good attorney can make an agreement that allows Google to be sued on the patents even if they are co-owners. Or the agreement may say that any Android phone manufacturer can be sued on the patents by Microsoft, and Google does not have the power to give those manufacturers licenses. So an undisclosed offer made in private does not mean much. If Microsoft had made their offer public they may use it to make a point, but as things stand now this supposed offer is best ignored. PS: I should also note that this "we made them a generous offer and they refused" statement is a trick often used by PR people and politicians to muddy the water.

2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
"we made them a generous offer and they refused" Who said that? I cannot find that in the tweet or the article.
- hristov 15y ago
  The tweet basically said "we made them an offer and they refused". They never mentioned "generous"; I must admit I added that for effect, but my original point stands.
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    It was an offer to talk, not terms, as is made clear in the email. Your point is lying dead in a ditch.
    - hristov 15y ago
      That was not clear in the email. Either you are privy to some undisclosed information or you are imagining things.
econgeeker 15y ago
You're in error. This was MSFT offering for google to talk about joining in the bidding. Google turned them down without knowing what the terms were, because the terms hadn't even been discussed. This was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms. Google has been caught with its senior counsel telling a blatant lie, in public. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see people trying to spin it so hard...

sriramk 15y ago

Ex-MSFT employee here, enjoying the fact that I can comment on HN on MSFT legal affairs for once :). I love Frank.X.Shaw's move here (hiring him from Waggner Edstorm was one of MSFT's best moves). Google is essentially trying to spin a situation where they were invited to be a part of a bid as a anti-competitive move. I'm slightly surprised that Google didn't see this coming - Drummond must have known that any public spat would lead to MSFT digging up any email threads between the two companies, especially those which make it seem like MSFT is trying to reach out to Google.

orky56 15y ago
These accusations are almost like patent bids. Google strikes first but Microsoft wins. Also, Google made the first move with this type of grievance. They have the luxury of setting the tone and ensuring that all other parties only have a chance to defend themselves rather than achieve anything greater than when this all started.
- tintin 15y ago
  "Google strikes first but Microsoft wins." Somehow I've got the feeling everybody is going to win. Google made the patent problem very public. This spark might light the fire of a revolution.
  - euroclydon 15y ago
    Remember when there was talk about Obama modifying the terms of underwater mortgage holders, but it was illegal? My non-lawyer opinion is that's what we'll see with patents -- future software patents may become difficult to obtain, but existing ones will have to be litigated individually.
  - napierzaza 15y ago
    Stop dreaming. Read Googles blog post. Google wants to be secure by buying up patents and over turn the Nortel patent sale. They are just whining that they don't have a toy too. Nobody is talking about overthrowing the patent system except for maybe people on HN. Google very seriously wants to be a player in this and have a patent portfolio. Read their blog post's last paragraph.

extension 15y ago

"Sorry Google but we offered to collude with you and you turned us down, so we had to collude against you" Is this how rotten Microsoft has become? They don't even grasp what they are being accused of. EDIT: I really wish people would reply with their opinion rather than just downvoting. Or at least do both. I thought it was an interesting observation that I haven't seen anyone make: Google complains about Microsoft's ethics and they respond with a point about strategy. Do they even understand the difference?

amartya916 15y ago
More like, joint bidders had a greater chance of getting the bounty, Google chose to ignore Microsoft's proposal. Apple took them up on the offer. That's how childish Google has become (or rather their legal and PR teams).
- extension 15y ago
  I don't understand why Google not wanting to team up with MS weakens their argument. If anything, it's quite consistent with it. But one way or another, what ultimately happened is that MS teamed up with Google's competitors to bully them with bullshit patents. That Google may have had a chance to avoid it doesn't make it any less wrong.
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    The only reason to not team up with Microsoft, et. al, is if google wanted to use the patents against them. If google simply wanted to be immune to claims from the Novell patents, they could have joined the group and saved money (vs. bidding by themselves against the group.) Further, you make two assertions here: "MS teamed up with Google's competitors to bully them with bullshit patents. " You haven't shown that MSFT has bullied google, nor that the patents are "bullshit". If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior art.
    - VanL 15y ago

afsina 15y ago

I believe reaching to Google from MS was a planned move. And it worked.

jan_g 15y ago
I have the same sentiment. My guess is that MS offered to team up before all the bidding took place. Google refused, because they wanted to have it all. After the bidding started, Microsoft teamed up with Apple and others. From Microsoft point of view, they win the patents either way. So, bad planning from Google, good planning from Microsoft.
- protomyth 15y ago
  I would imagine from Microsoft's point of view Apple is "safe" since they have known behavior and agreements with Microsoft already. I do wonder what Microsoft thinks of HTC these days.
masklinn 15y ago
> I believe reaching to Google from MS was a planned move. Of course it was a planned move, it's not like a guy wakes up in the morning and calls a significant competitor to offer a joint bid on a billion+ patent trove while buttering his toasts. > And it worked. The only way for it not to work would be if Google had won their bids. As long as MSFT's joint bid got the prize they got out happy. Google tried to play a hard game, and they blew it.

FameofLight 15y ago

Googles make a large hue and cry whenever its free enterprise are in danger. Same happened with bing story. All bogus claims. People who spend large amount of money in creating new technology want to have something in return. Every product can't go by freemium model.

ch0wn 15y ago
You don't understand software patents.

akkartik 15y ago

Rebuttal: http://fury.com/2011/08/twitter-is-the-new-soundbyte-and-thats-not-good http://fury.com/2011/08/twitter-is-the-new-soundbyte-and-tha...

sriramk 15y ago
His post doesn't address this - Google bidding alongside MSFT and winning on these patents would have taken these patents off the table as far as any future litigation goes, basically making these one less set of patents for either Google or MSFT to worry about. Does he expect MSFT to somehow help Google build a defensive portfolio against it?

g123g 15y ago

These behind the scenes emails raise a question in my mind. On what other issues these companies are covertly colluding with each other which we don't know. One obvious thing could be some kind of silent agreement on not competing with each other on employee salaries etc. to keep them in check. There could be more like trying not to increase valuations of startups they are trying to acquire.

econgeeker 15y ago
Is it really covert? In the case of the Nortel bids, the bidders were getting government approval before bidding, and it was made public after the fact who was in the groups. I'm not sure that removing anonymity from bidders is a good thing or not. I mean, if you know who the other bidders are, that would affect your strategy, removing some purity from the auction process, wouldn't it? But, maybe you feel I'm sidestepping your real issue, so let me make another point: In any situation where companies might collude like this, they're effectively creating a cartel. Say, in the case of the employee salaries that you mention. The problem with a cartel is that there is always an incentive for a member of the cartel to violate the agreement. For instance, if MSFT, Apple, Facebook and Google agreed to cap software developer salaries, then Google (or one of the others) has an incentive to secretly violate that agreement to get the best employees, right? Pretty soon the cartel falls apart, or the agreement has no effect. The stronger the agreement, the more incentive there is to violate it. Further, imagine if they were successful and kept salaries below a market rate-- this would give a huge boost to any of their competitors who were willing to pay market rates, right? They'd only be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, driving the best employees to other companies. This is why cartels don't really work, or at least aren't sustainable for very long.

tensor 15y ago

I think the take home message of all of this, more than ever, is that software patents are damaging to innovation and an overall detriment to the industry. These companies should be competing on performance and features, not with lawyers over whether a linked list is an innovation (example taken out of context, but some of these patents are no better than the multiply linked list patent covered a year ago).

econgeeker 15y ago
I posit that android would not be on the market in the touch-screen form it is now, if Apple hadn't made its inventions public due to the patent process. If you consider android innovative, then the patent process saved google the 7+ years Apple spent developing the iPhone and allowed them to get to the market much quicker with a touch screen phone (they'd been previously working on a blackberry style OS for android.) I am the inventor of two software patents. One of which involved solving the visual glitches that appear in online games due to the high latency of playing over a modem. This patent involved a lot of timing issues, and was pretty narrow. However it was claimed on slashdot that we "patented the idea of online gaming!!!!" Later, in a discussion list, they claimed we'd patented the idea of IRC! People seem to presume that patents are on ideas, and that people are patenting really obvious ideas. In the case of the patents I've been involved in, that is not what has happened. In fact, the portrayal of what was covered by the patent didn't match the patent at all, and it is clear that the people putting forward those patents as examples of bad patents were, frankly misrepresenting them. Every time I've seen a bogus patent claim and actually read the patent, I've found this to be the case as well. (I don't remember the linked-list example, so haven't read that particular one.) I'm not saying that bogus patents don't exist. I'm sure you can get things by the examiner. But the system has a solution for this-- if your patent is bogus then it won't stand up in court. If prior art exists, then you run the risk of spending a lot of money, only to have the patent nullified when someone presents prior art. (And I mean real prior art, not the kind of stuff that people claim is prior art, like the claim that IRC is prior art for solving clock jitter in 3D online games) The patent system, as with anything else that relies on the meager US court system, is expensive... but there is no need for reform, that I can see, as all these allegedly bogus patents would be quickly thrown out if they really were as obvious as is claimed and if there really was the abundance of prior art, as is claimed. Google is certainly capable, both financially and intellectually, of getting a bogus patent thrown out. There's no reason they should be calling on the federal government to intervene with a political "solution" on their behalf... unless they know that there isn't actually prior art and the patents are, in fact, legitimate. In fact, I think googles call for reform is an admission that the patents aren't bogus after all. Edit: I didn't change the text above, but want to clarify- I'm responsible for some claims on one of these patents, though not named as an inventor (I didn't realize the significance at the time.) For the other I am the sole inventor, but it hasn't been brought forth as "bogus" in a public forum yet, though, for those who don't read it carefully, they could easily make the claim. This is why I'm being vague about the specific patents. Previous experience on Hacker News tells me that if I wasn't vague the topic would turn to how those patents are so obviously "bogus" (to people who haven't read more than the headline)... and well, frankly my name is on them. I really don't to be discriminated against in business for having a pr-intellectual property position. The current climate makes that fear seem pretty legitimate.

jigs_up 15y ago

Mobile companies such as HTC, Motorla and Samsung are being forced to pay Microsoft licensing fees for their Android phones because of patents Microsoft owns. Google needs its own arsenal of patents in order to prevent the situation from getting worse. How is Android supposed to prosper if mobile companies are being forced to pay Microsoft to use it? Owning the patents jointly with Microsoft gives Google nothing to use against Microsoft, therefore defeating the whole purpose of owning the patents.

Hyena 15y ago

Doesn't this suggest that MS tried to organize a cartel to put a lock on the wireless industry? The major players all coming together to purchase patent portfolios and agreeing not to sue each other over it sure smells like an anti-trust violation.

pagejim 15y ago

can someone throw light on what these patents hold?

rbanffy 15y ago

I am confused. Why would Google want to jointly bid on patents in a way they could not be used to protect itself and its partners from Microsoft? Microsoft's council can't be so naïve. Edit: by refusing to participate, Google indicated that either they wanted the patents in order to be able to defend against Microsoft or that they didn't find them worth the effort. The proposal could pretty much be the way Microsoft used to measure Google's interest and intentions

thoughtsimple 15y ago
While you are almost certainly correct you are missing the point about Google's blog post. The lawyer who wrote is demonstrably lying about the situation. "They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;" If Google was offered a chance to bid along with Microsoft, how is Microsoft trying to make sure Google didn't get them? While it may not have been in Google's best interest to partner with Microsoft, they can hardly argue in good faith that Microsoft is trying to withhold those patents from Google in some sort of conspiracy.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  You assume the offer was real and made in good faith. If, however, Microsoft offered Google the chance to jointly bid without any intention of really doing so, Google's interpretation still holds.
- yohui 15y ago
  Microsoft et al. don't want Google to have the patents usuable against them. Either outbidding or co-owning works. Microsoft had enough patents that it was more important Google did not have the patents for itself than for Microsoft to add to its own arsenal. Google might have instead accused Microsoft of denying it leverage, in the face of Microsoft et al.'s mountain of existing patents, but at the time that probably seemed a verbose way of making the same point: that Android's competitors would like to kill it with patents. (We haven't list sight of the fact that B&N, HTC, and others have been targeted for using Android, while the same can't be said for WP7 licensees, have we?)

sek 15y ago

Microsoft attacked Android Phone producers, Google needs to defend them "against" Microsoft. A bidding with Microsoft wouldn't make sense at all.

iamelgringo 15y ago

Google is going to need to hire a lot more lawyers these days... anti-trust inquiries against themselves, weak patent portfolio... Gonna be really interesting to watch.

aaronsw 15y ago

One interesting possibility: Google planned to only use the patents defensively but the joint bid would have required them participating in offensive action, which they refuse to do.

jstedfast 15y ago
That is obviously not the case as Microsoft immediately sold back the Novell patents to Attachmate and so cannot participate in any offensive action.

napierzaza 15y ago

Obvious lies. Google is the lone white knight who is alone in a forrest full of trolls. Who wants to collect and sell our personal information...

ams6110 15y ago

In two large organizations A and B, how likely is it that someone at B can find an email from a person at A to a person at B that appears to contradict some assertion by some other person at A?

blinkingled 15y ago

Google's punch was related to Nortel Patents, Microsoft's misfired missile carried Novell patents as the warhead. "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no." So Google may still have a point that Nortel patents were gobbled up by Apple and MSFT to strangle Android just as the Novell ones are.

goatforce5 15y ago

> Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation. I think that 'instead of' should be a 'As well as'.

yalurker 15y ago

Google says the group of major players colluding together in a joint bid for patents is anti-competitive. Google did not want to join this anti-competitive collusion. How is this inconsistent, shocking, or bad? Couldn't the simple explanation be "If we join forces with Microsoft and Apple to jointly buy these patents, the DoJ is going to come down on all of us for illegal anti-competitive behavior"? Why are people acting like Google did something wrong by not wanting to join the cartel that they are now publicly saying is anti-competitive and that the DoJ should impose limits on?

tomica 15y ago

anyone remember when AAPL claimed "we just wish to protect our innovation" (i think it was about the HTC suit). well, how does buying novel/nortel patents protect your innovation? how does joining with MSFT to keep patents away from GOOG protect your innovation?