6 ms·

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

by 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...
- magicalist 15y ago
  You've asserted this like four times. Is there actually more information on this story available than what was in the tweets and email?
  - econgeeker 15y ago
    The email makes it pretty clear: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says.google.could.have.joined.patent.bid/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says...
    - nitrogen 15y ago
      The tweet below the e-mail refers to Novell patents. Maybe it was a typo or a Freudian slip, but as the tweet+e-mail stand now, they're hardly a smoking gun. If true, it is curious that Google would refuse to join the joint bidding team, but there are many reasons to do so, some of which may not be available to the public.
    - magicalist 15y ago
      The entire relevant text from the email is "After talking with people here, it sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn’t be advisable for us on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we’re open to discussing other similar opportunities in the future." That does not back up your claims. Humorously, the article you linked to, though confusing Novell and Nortel, clearly points out that no context is given for any prior communication (which would be necessary for evaluating your claims of "this was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms"), and gives yet another reasonable argument for why google wouldn't want to agree to a joint bid: "The search firm might have felt bound by the terms of its "stalking horse" bid, which would let it break up any existing patent licensing terms if it won; it would never have had that option in the winning group as companies with Nortel patent licenses, like Microsoft, would have insisted on keeping them intact."
ugh 15y ago
This new information is quite helpful for me. It reaffirms my assessment that this is all about PR and I shouldn’t believe anyone. Microsoft’s motives aren’t pure, Google’s motives aren’t pure but that’s kinda obvious, isn’t it? (By the way, we do not know whether or not Google and Microsoft were already talking about conditions, we don’t know what those conditions were. You seem to base your assessment on information we don’t have.)
- HardyLeung 15y ago
  This is my take. Microsoft is known to be evil, led by incompetent leaders, etc. I get it. They intent to use patents to screw Google to the fullest extent possible, and like anyone would/should be surprised. On the other hand, Google took the high road and built on their feel-good "Do No Evil" mantra. So I hold them to their words, and whenever a screw-up like this happens, where Googlers were exposed to be liars no different than others, shouldn't they be "punished" at least by their own pie in the face a bit more?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
napierzaza 15y ago
So wrong. MSFT only invited them and Google turned them down flat. So there was not negative agreement that you are clearly inventing. Obvious that would be a raw deal, thanks for assuming that it would go that way. Just so you know, 99% of business is not done for hristov or anyone else on HN's benefit. Inter business deals are usually negotiated in private. Especially if it was a preliminary offer.

by hristov 15y ago

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...

magicalist 15y ago
You've asserted this like four times. Is there actually more information on this story available than what was in the tweets and email?
- econgeeker 15y ago
  The email makes it pretty clear: http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says.google.could.have.joined.patent.bid/ http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says...
  - nitrogen 15y ago
    The tweet below the e-mail refers to Novell patents. Maybe it was a typo or a Freudian slip, but as the tweet+e-mail stand now, they're hardly a smoking gun. If true, it is curious that Google would refuse to join the joint bidding team, but there are many reasons to do so, some of which may not be available to the public.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    The entire relevant text from the email is "After talking with people here, it sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn’t be advisable for us on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we’re open to discussing other similar opportunities in the future." That does not back up your claims. Humorously, the article you linked to, though confusing Novell and Nortel, clearly points out that no context is given for any prior communication (which would be necessary for evaluating your claims of "this was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms"), and gives yet another reasonable argument for why google wouldn't want to agree to a joint bid: "The search firm might have felt bound by the terms of its "stalking horse" bid, which would let it break up any existing patent licensing terms if it won; it would never have had that option in the winning group as companies with Nortel patent licenses, like Microsoft, would have insisted on keeping them intact."

ugh 15y ago

This new information is quite helpful for me. It reaffirms my assessment that this is all about PR and I shouldn’t believe anyone. Microsoft’s motives aren’t pure, Google’s motives aren’t pure but that’s kinda obvious, isn’t it? (By the way, we do not know whether or not Google and Microsoft were already talking about conditions, we don’t know what those conditions were. You seem to base your assessment on information we don’t have.)

HardyLeung 15y ago
This is my take. Microsoft is known to be evil, led by incompetent leaders, etc. I get it. They intent to use patents to screw Google to the fullest extent possible, and like anyone would/should be surprised. On the other hand, Google took the high road and built on their feel-good "Do No Evil" mantra. So I hold them to their words, and whenever a screw-up like this happens, where Googlers were exposed to be liars no different than others, shouldn't they be "punished" at least by their own pie in the face a bit more?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

napierzaza 15y ago

So wrong. MSFT only invited them and Google turned them down flat. So there was not negative agreement that you are clearly inventing. Obvious that would be a raw deal, thanks for assuming that it would go that way. Just so you know, 99% of business is not done for hristov or anyone else on HN's benefit. Inter business deals are usually negotiated in private. Especially if it was a preliminary offer.