3 ms·

"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

"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
      You say "If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior art." this is false. Nothing is ever easy in court, and invalidating patents is especially so-by design. There is a presumption of validity that attaches by law to every issued patent. In layman's terms, that means that the deck is stacked against anyone who tries to invalidate a patent in court. Further, validity in court is decided in two parts. The first part is when the judge - a 50 year old who did history or poli sci undergrad - "construes" the claims by deciding what they mean. This frequently leads to some marvelous interpretations of terms. At least the judge has a college education and tries to get it right. Next, the "facts" about how the patent claims apply to the accused technology are determined by a jury. Distressingly often, this jury is in East Texas, where there are two undergraduate degrees and ten people who have ever used the Internet in the 100-person jury pool. You think I'm kidding. Or exaggerating. I'm not. I have often thought that I could write a legal thriller with a helping of Dan Brown-style "all the facts and cases discussed in this book are real." people are astounded when it is explained to them.
    - aphexairlines 15y ago
      Joining with Microsoft to become immune from Novell patents is a waste of money when Microsoft can still turn around and sue you for implementing a FAT32 driver.
    - v21 15y ago
      > 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.) But what if they wished to grant immunity to Android manufacturers, but the group did not want them to?
epo 15y ago
I think you have failed to grasp what was said. It's not an "interesting observation", it's about as fundamental a misinterpretation as you can get. Unless you are suggesting that Google didn't know why the others were bidding on patents in the first place, in which case you have to tell us why Google was bidding at all.
Toady 15y ago
You're being down voted because you missed the point. Google's lawyer was claiming that Microsoft was banding together with rivals to damage them, but Microsoft has revealed that they actually offered to team up with Google, and Google refused because they wanted the patents for themselves. A lot of people are giving Google the benefit of the doubt for their motivations in bidding on the patents (hey, it's pro-Google territory around here, I get that), but the point of this article is that Google's blog post was a lie. They were trying to portray a pattern of behavior on Microsoft's part by which they team up with competitors against Google, yet it turns out Microsoft actually offered to bid with Google.
- extension 15y ago
  Google refused because they wanted the patents for themselves Google refused for any of a myriad of reasons which I doubt anyone here can even begin to know, nor can we begin to know what the terms of this offer were. However, seeing as MS is in fierce competition with Google and is already on the offensive in the patent war, I would not assume the offer was particularly amicable. They were trying to portray a pattern of behavior on Microsoft's part by which they team up with competitors against Google, yet it turns out Microsoft actually offered to bid with Google. MS did team up with competitors against Google. Possibly after offering to team up with Google, but so what? How are the two mutually exclusive? MS is a corporation, not a character in a story. They can have a dozen different interests at once, with no particular loyalties or moral consistency.

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
    You say "If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior art." this is false. Nothing is ever easy in court, and invalidating patents is especially so-by design. There is a presumption of validity that attaches by law to every issued patent. In layman's terms, that means that the deck is stacked against anyone who tries to invalidate a patent in court. Further, validity in court is decided in two parts. The first part is when the judge - a 50 year old who did history or poli sci undergrad - "construes" the claims by deciding what they mean. This frequently leads to some marvelous interpretations of terms. At least the judge has a college education and tries to get it right. Next, the "facts" about how the patent claims apply to the accused technology are determined by a jury. Distressingly often, this jury is in East Texas, where there are two undergraduate degrees and ten people who have ever used the Internet in the 100-person jury pool. You think I'm kidding. Or exaggerating. I'm not. I have often thought that I could write a legal thriller with a helping of Dan Brown-style "all the facts and cases discussed in this book are real." people are astounded when it is explained to them.
  - aphexairlines 15y ago
    Joining with Microsoft to become immune from Novell patents is a waste of money when Microsoft can still turn around and sue you for implementing a FAT32 driver.
  - v21 15y ago
    > 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.) But what if they wished to grant immunity to Android manufacturers, but the group did not want them to?

epo 15y ago

I think you have failed to grasp what was said. It's not an "interesting observation", it's about as fundamental a misinterpretation as you can get. Unless you are suggesting that Google didn't know why the others were bidding on patents in the first place, in which case you have to tell us why Google was bidding at all.

Toady 15y ago

You're being down voted because you missed the point. Google's lawyer was claiming that Microsoft was banding together with rivals to damage them, but Microsoft has revealed that they actually offered to team up with Google, and Google refused because they wanted the patents for themselves. A lot of people are giving Google the benefit of the doubt for their motivations in bidding on the patents (hey, it's pro-Google territory around here, I get that), but the point of this article is that Google's blog post was a lie. They were trying to portray a pattern of behavior on Microsoft's part by which they team up with competitors against Google, yet it turns out Microsoft actually offered to bid with Google.

extension 15y ago
Google refused because they wanted the patents for themselves Google refused for any of a myriad of reasons which I doubt anyone here can even begin to know, nor can we begin to know what the terms of this offer were. However, seeing as MS is in fierce competition with Google and is already on the offensive in the patent war, I would not assume the offer was particularly amicable. They were trying to portray a pattern of behavior on Microsoft's part by which they team up with competitors against Google, yet it turns out Microsoft actually offered to bid with Google. MS did team up with competitors against Google. Possibly after offering to team up with Google, but so what? How are the two mutually exclusive? MS is a corporation, not a character in a story. They can have a dozen different interests at once, with no particular loyalties or moral consistency.