4 ms·

I don't understand how this makes their case weaker. They're saying they're opposed to the collusion apparent in the novell and nortel deals. By turning down

by angus77 15y ago

I don't understand how this makes their case weaker. They're saying they're opposed to the collusion apparent in the novell and nortel deals. By turning down microsoft, they're showing how they're not willing to be party to collusion. Sounds pretty consistent to me.

kenjackson 15y ago
I don't think you understand what collusion means. Simply going in together on patents isn't collusion. Intel and Google were together on the final run for the Nortel patents. Google bought 1,000 patents from IBM just a week or so later. Google has no problem sharing patents. The "implied" collusion was that the patents would be used against Google. This clearly isn't the case if they were asked to be part of the fold.
- angus77 15y ago
  I understand perfectly what collusion means. Whether you interpret the situation as collusion or not is irrelevant. If Google interpreted it as collusion at the time, then it would be consistent with their actions.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  >The "implied" collusion was that the patents would be used against Google. Everyone arguing against Google is conveniently forgetting that Google has only been sued by Oracle over Android. All the other suits are against individual manufacturers. This is about Apple and Microsoft colluding against HTC, Motorola, etc. to force them to license Microsoft software. This is not just about Apple and Microsoft colluding against Google. The only way I could see Apple and Microsoft doing a joint bid with Google is if they retained the ability to sue other players using these patents. So until I see a clear offer of terms, it seems pretty obvious Google was not rejecting a good-faith offer from Apple and Microsoft. They were rejecting a situation where Google would help Apple and Microsoft buy up patents to use against manufacturers that ship Android.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    The only way I could see Apple and Microsoft doing a joint bid with Google is if they retained the ability to sue other players using these patents. The way the patent worked w/o Google was that each party got a 100% perpetual license to use the patents. That is Android would be in the clear on the patents. They would also get a set of patents equal to x% of the patents. So you'd have a set of patents you could assert against anyone you wanted, except those in the deal. So Android manufacturers would have been in the clear for everything Google produced. BUT, for example, skins on top of Android could still be attacked. And of course so could the HW. Google should have went in on the deal and pushed stock Android to the phone manufacturers. Sure it hurts differentiation, but today the skins suck anyways, and it would reduce their patent surface (although clearly there are patents MS and Apple have that are outside of these deals).
    - lukeschlather 15y ago
      >The way the patent worked w/o Google Okay, we're not talking about a patent, we're talking about a patent licensing agreement, which I don't think either of us have read. And I doubt that it would have given Android users/manufacturers bulletproof protection.
      - kenjackson 15y ago
        What I meant was the agreement for the members of the consortium. The licensing agreement is public as it was investigated by the DOJ.

by angus77 15y ago

kenjackson 15y ago

I don't think you understand what collusion means. Simply going in together on patents isn't collusion. Intel and Google were together on the final run for the Nortel patents. Google bought 1,000 patents from IBM just a week or so later. Google has no problem sharing patents. The "implied" collusion was that the patents would be used against Google. This clearly isn't the case if they were asked to be part of the fold.

angus77 15y ago
I understand perfectly what collusion means. Whether you interpret the situation as collusion or not is irrelevant. If Google interpreted it as collusion at the time, then it would be consistent with their actions.
lukeschlather 15y ago
>The "implied" collusion was that the patents would be used against Google. Everyone arguing against Google is conveniently forgetting that Google has only been sued by Oracle over Android. All the other suits are against individual manufacturers. This is about Apple and Microsoft colluding against HTC, Motorola, etc. to force them to license Microsoft software. This is not just about Apple and Microsoft colluding against Google. The only way I could see Apple and Microsoft doing a joint bid with Google is if they retained the ability to sue other players using these patents. So until I see a clear offer of terms, it seems pretty obvious Google was not rejecting a good-faith offer from Apple and Microsoft. They were rejecting a situation where Google would help Apple and Microsoft buy up patents to use against manufacturers that ship Android.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  The only way I could see Apple and Microsoft doing a joint bid with Google is if they retained the ability to sue other players using these patents. The way the patent worked w/o Google was that each party got a 100% perpetual license to use the patents. That is Android would be in the clear on the patents. They would also get a set of patents equal to x% of the patents. So you'd have a set of patents you could assert against anyone you wanted, except those in the deal. So Android manufacturers would have been in the clear for everything Google produced. BUT, for example, skins on top of Android could still be attacked. And of course so could the HW. Google should have went in on the deal and pushed stock Android to the phone manufacturers. Sure it hurts differentiation, but today the skins suck anyways, and it would reduce their patent surface (although clearly there are patents MS and Apple have that are outside of these deals).
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    >The way the patent worked w/o Google Okay, we're not talking about a patent, we're talking about a patent licensing agreement, which I don't think either of us have read. And I doubt that it would have given Android users/manufacturers bulletproof protection.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      What I meant was the agreement for the members of the consortium. The licensing agreement is public as it was investigated by the DOJ.