8 ms·

Google Responds To Microsoft’s "Gotcha": They’re Diverting Attention

80 points by profitbaron 15y ago

kenjackson 15y ago
I'm glad Google finally just came out and said it, rather than trying to say, what they said previously, which was that MS and Apple were trying to keep the patents from them. A tip for Google, the truth works better, even if it requires a few more sentences to tell it. On the actual merits though, Google seems to be completely lost in the world of IP tactics. They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Head to head, if MS+Apple want the patents they'll win them. Trying to win them outright as defensive patents was a stupid attempt. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Google really needs to start producing significant IP in the mobile space. Their current IP strategy is naive, and likely costly. The fact that they didn't think about this three years ago, when Jobs was on stage talking about patenting everything, up and down, is a firing offense, IMO.
- yanw 15y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing (if you have even read any of it), they haven't retracted anything nor changed their position. There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then they couldn't use the patents to block Microsoft from extorting handset makers which defeats the whole purpose. It's not about buying patents for the sake of having patents. If any of the reporters had bothered to ask an IP lawyer all this would have been made clear to them, but they unthinkingly quote Tweets and print comments from Florian Muller instead. And are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! I very much urge you to think on that.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then couldn't they use the patent to block Of course not. But you take those patents off the table. It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with. Even under reasonable terms, if MS gets enough patents, they could raise licensing fees such that doing WP over Android is a no-brainer. Now the Android licensing fees are just a nuisance. Also are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! Yes (well cheaper -- not quicker). At least buying targeted patents. These large portfolios are going for about $500k-$750k per patent. I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. The big advantage they get w/ buying is the patents are available now. But this is why this is a firing offense. Everyone else in the industry has been building up their IP warchest for some time. Apple telegraphed it years ago that they'd fight with patents in the mobile space. Google seems to be surprised.
    - hn_decay 15y ago
      >I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly, and IBM would have no reason to keep it quiet. This was strategic for IBM (which is actually a bizarrely responsible corporation): They have a strategic interest in seeing Google empowered.
      - kenjackson 15y ago
        A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly It wasn't very quiet (that it happened). People think Nokia may have gotten $630M from Apple as licensing fees showed up in the quarterly report. Of course there isn't a line item that says, "From Apple". My point is that people just knew a transaction took place, but didn't know the price. This is the same thing with IBM. Maybe IBM sold for less, but they're not stupid. They could empower Google and get a lot of money at the same time. As you say, IBM is responsible, and responsible companies don't leave money on the table. Terms of these sorts of private negotations and settlements are usually kept quiet. Often part of the agreement itself.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with Those patents can become harmless if Google acquires some other patents Microsoft and Apple infringe and force them into cross-licensing. Obviously, Apple and Microsoft would be more inclined to litigate because an unencumbered Android would doom their respective mobile platforms (Apple less than Microsoft, in this case)
- joebadmo 15y ago
  Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but if we take Google to be both unafraid to take risks and long-term in its thinking, we can interpret all of its actions as spending as little as possible on patents while getting opponents to spend as much as possible and simultaneously undermining software patents at large. Seems to me like Google is taking advantage of a growing anti-patent sentiment in the tech community that's beginning to spill over into the mainstream and capitalizing on the idea that the innovation-stifling patent regime is contributing to a stagnating economy. Exhibit A: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federal-trade-commission-intellectual-property-expert-michel.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federa... Exhibit B: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/in... Exhibit C: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tuesday-podcast-the-patent-war http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tues...
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    Probably naively optimistic. ;-) The public generally doesn't care. The courts won't change course without congress. Congress won't make a big change. Minor reform at best (I doubt we'll see much more than what is already in the oven). The problem is that Android isn't viewed as innovative by most consumers. I think in a PR battle between Apple saying Google copies, and Google saying that Apple is blocking them from innovating -- Apple wins. And the other issue is that a lot of the patents at stake are HW patents. Undermining HW patents is a much harder sell.
    - rbanffy 15y ago
      > Congress won't make a big change. Every dollar Microsoft spends on patents cannot be spent on lobbies. And the other way around applies to Google: every dollar not spent chasing patents can be spent lobbying for patent reform. And, while that leaves hardware patents untouched, they are not the problem. Microsoft is extorting Google partners using bogus software patents, not hardware ones.
- hn_decay 15y ago
  Came out and said what? This is just providing more detail to exactly what Google said before. Discount whatever second hand noise you've read elsewhere: Google has been very consistent thus far (they derode patents when they made their $900 bid on the Nortel patents, for instance. They didn't learn to hate patents after losing), and this inside detail does in no way change or undermine what they said yesterday. Microsoft and Apple don't want Google to have defensive patents (patents that both of them know that they infringe on in droves, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned about them). They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Dwarfs is a gross exaggeration. Further both Apple and Microsoft have shareholder responsibility. Microsoft has already made questionable judgment calls to maintain the upper hand -- billions of dollars in patents to make a few hundred million a year in extortion fees, while empowering their own primary competitor (Apple)? It's extraordinary. Apple shareholders are going to start demanding their cash back if it looks like one giant ego pile. And Google can't quietly buy patents because the people selling want to get as much as possible for it. Well except for IBM who just wanted to stick a gank in Oracle. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Many of the patents that Microsoft and Apple are using against Android precede the mobile explosion. They are older companies, having had a long time of big profits to pay people to sit around submitting patent applications.
shabble 15y ago
The Nortel patent purse had over 6,000 patents, but InterDigital has over 8,800. If the winning bid on Nortel was $4.5 billion, InterDigital should be well north of $5 billion. Not quite sure where this logic comes from. Surely they're only valuable if they're relevant and strategically useful?
- kenjackson 15y ago
  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/samsung-is-said-to-examine-interdigital-s-patents-after-approach-for-bid.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/samsung-is-said-to-... InterDigital’s engineers invented some of the technology for high-speed mobile phone networks now used by the world’s biggest handset makers. This is a link on some of their "breakthroughs" covered in their patent portfolio: http://www.interdigital.com/patents/category/patent_portfolio http://www.interdigital.com/patents/category/patent_portfoli... "North" is the key word here. This could get crazy. I bet Nathan Myrvhold is laughing to the bank right now.
  - corin_ 15y ago
    The issue is that, rather than making judgements like you have done, reporters have been finding it easy to base suggestions on the numbers, suggesting the reason they would be worth more is that there are more of them.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  The only reason for the high price of Nortel patents was because all those big name companies got involved. If it's only Google and Apple the price for these patents might be much lower, maybe half. It all depends how Apple and Google want to play witch each other though.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
giberson 15y ago
Wait wait wait wait. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Having the license to the patent means you get to use the patented technology--no one can come after you. That's the protection, you get to use it. This is bullshit, Google didn't decline the offer because it didn't give them protection, they declined the offer because it didn't give them an ability use those patents against Microsoft.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- joebadmo 15y ago
  You need to learn how defensive patents work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation It's not just to stop from being sued over that particular patent, but to be able to use that patent to counter-sue when litigated for other patents. Google has yet to use any of its patents offensively.
  - eridius 15y ago
    Google didn't argue that this patent purchase was for defensive reasons. They argued that it was for offensive reasons, that these patents could then be used to attack Google and force licensing fees onto Android. That entire argument is negated by the fact that Google had the option of bidding jointly on the patents and, therefore, having a license to them.
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      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; Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. Where did they argue that it was for offensive reasons?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
sriramk 15y ago
Here's the response to this response :) http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... On an unrelated note, this is a very different kind of MSFT PR, and almost completely brought about by Frank Shaw. In the old days, MSFT would have put out a boring press release filled with corporate speak. Frank has brought a real-time, plain-speak, slightly aggressive approach to dealing with crises like this one and the earlier Bing/Google toolbar spat. Interesting shift in PR strategy.
- sek 15y ago
  But he doesn't make a good impression, soon he has to explain why Microsoft is attacking android with patents. There was no "gotcha" and these people on Techcrunch see this whole thing as a reality show. It is sad because this is serious stuff, Microsoft is fighting Google with unfair methods.
  - sriramk 15y ago
    Unfair is all relative - people think it is unfair Google is giving away Android for free by funding it with its search revenue. I don't agree with what MSFT is doing with Android patents but they have a stock answer which I'm sure they'll repeat.
    - sek 15y ago
      What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? When Microsoft can't build a product that justifies a higher price that is their problem, Apple figured that out so it isn't impossible. Unfair (or use another word) is in my eyes trying to beat Google in anything other than the Product itself, for example forcing Android producers into paying extra with a broken patent system.
      - sriramk 15y ago
        First, minor nitpick - Apple is going after Android with various lawsuits as well. But let's keep that aside. Contrast these arguments - back in the 90s, MSFT was accused of killing off Netscape by essentially giving away a browser for free using the revenue from Windows and Office. One could argue that Google is doing the same thing, funding Android with its revenues from ads. Let's forget Android for a second -look at turn-by-turn navigation. That's an expensive product to build but Google, by giving it away for free (again, subsidized by its other revenues) and is causing serious trouble to other companies which have the misfortune of not having an alternative revenue source. Is it 'fair' that Google can basically disrupt industries by giving away things for free just because it gets money through another source? You can see how that argument could be made, whether it is right or wrong. I personally don't think any of this is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It's all business between corporate behemoths.
shareme 15y ago
Folks, the longer this goes on more startups lose.. TC should know better than to get involved in one-upmanship that hurts startups.. Whose startup among HN readers can afford patent lawsuits say if either MSFT or Google come knocking? So where is the coverage of how dismal the current patent reform legislation at TC?
- polyfractal 15y ago
  There was a Stanford Entrepeneural Thought Leader Seminar where the speaker (I forget who) said: "The day big corporations come knocking at your door threatening lawsuits...that is the day you know you've made it". No startup will have to worry about patent litigation from giants, unless they are perceived a threat. And if they are perceived a threat, they are significant enough to combat or negotiate their way out of it.
wuster 15y ago
I'm getting really sick of MG's sensationalist writing. He's the reason I've unsubscribed from TC.
- f7u12 15y ago
  TC in general seems to have been very sensationalist lately. I now take them about as seriously as I do Daily Mail.
- zmalltalker 15y ago
  For the same reason, I created a RSS feed of TC which excludes anything written by MG: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.run?_id=3b4a015445a904d76f63651d370c5d25&_render=rss http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.run?_id=3b4a015445a904d76f... Feel free to use it!
redthrowaway 15y ago
>The Nortel patent purse had over 6,000 patents, but InterDigital has over 8,800. If the winning bid on Nortel was $4.5 billion, InterDigital should be well north of $5 billion. That's $5BB that won't be used to create new products and technologies. It's $5BB that won't be used to hire new employees, and it's $5BB taken out of the pockets of shareholders. At least taxes go back into the economy. They might as well throw the money in a pile and set it alight.
palish 15y ago
Offtopic: What movie is that screenshot from? ( http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/f1.jpeg?w=288 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/f1.jpeg?... )
- dhugiaskmak 15y ago
  Face/Off http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119094/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119094/
  - palish 15y ago
    Aw. Was hoping to discover a decent older movie. EDIT: That's more like it... the next TechCrunch article uses a screenshot from Reservoir Dogs, which was a pretty awesome movie IMO. ( http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/reservoir-dogs-fig-5.jpeg?w=288 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/reservoi... )
badclient 15y ago
Can someone translate this? What exactly is google arguing in their response to MS? It sounded to me that google's response was that they didn't partner because then they could not keep those patents just to themselves. Somehow I feel I'm misunderstanding it? That sounds too dumb of a response to be accurate.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  Google claimed that Android was being attacked with patents. Microsoft responded that they invited Google to jointly buy patents. Microsoft is currently threatening Android hardware partners with their existing patents to extract fees. Patents jointly owned by Google and Microsoft would not affect this, patents owned only by Google could force Microsoft to back down.

80 points by profitbaron 15y ago

I'm glad Google finally just came out and said it, rather than trying to say, what they said previously, which was that MS and Apple were trying to keep the patents from them. A tip for Google, the truth works better, even if it requires a few more sentences to tell it. On the actual merits though, Google seems to be completely lost in the world of IP tactics. They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Head to head, if MS+Apple want the patents they'll win them. Trying to win them outright as defensive patents was a stupid attempt. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Google really needs to start producing significant IP in the mobile space. Their current IP strategy is naive, and likely costly. The fact that they didn't think about this three years ago, when Jobs was on stage talking about patenting everything, up and down, is a firing offense, IMO.

yanw 15y ago
You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing (if you have even read any of it), they haven't retracted anything nor changed their position. There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then they couldn't use the patents to block Microsoft from extorting handset makers which defeats the whole purpose. It's not about buying patents for the sake of having patents. If any of the reporters had bothered to ask an IP lawyer all this would have been made clear to them, but they unthinkingly quote Tweets and print comments from Florian Muller instead. And are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! I very much urge you to think on that.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then couldn't they use the patent to block Of course not. But you take those patents off the table. It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with. Even under reasonable terms, if MS gets enough patents, they could raise licensing fees such that doing WP over Android is a no-brainer. Now the Android licensing fees are just a nuisance. Also are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! Yes (well cheaper -- not quicker). At least buying targeted patents. These large portfolios are going for about $500k-$750k per patent. I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. The big advantage they get w/ buying is the patents are available now. But this is why this is a firing offense. Everyone else in the industry has been building up their IP warchest for some time. Apple telegraphed it years ago that they'd fight with patents in the mobile space. Google seems to be surprised.
  - hn_decay 15y ago
    >I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought. A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly, and IBM would have no reason to keep it quiet. This was strategic for IBM (which is actually a bizarrely responsible corporation): They have a strategic interest in seeing Google empowered.
    - kenjackson 15y ago
      A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly It wasn't very quiet (that it happened). People think Nokia may have gotten $630M from Apple as licensing fees showed up in the quarterly report. Of course there isn't a line item that says, "From Apple". My point is that people just knew a transaction took place, but didn't know the price. This is the same thing with IBM. Maybe IBM sold for less, but they're not stupid. They could empower Google and get a lot of money at the same time. As you say, IBM is responsible, and responsible companies don't leave money on the table. Terms of these sorts of private negotations and settlements are usually kept quiet. Often part of the agreement itself.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with Those patents can become harmless if Google acquires some other patents Microsoft and Apple infringe and force them into cross-licensing. Obviously, Apple and Microsoft would be more inclined to litigate because an unencumbered Android would doom their respective mobile platforms (Apple less than Microsoft, in this case)
joebadmo 15y ago
Maybe I'm being naively optimistic, but if we take Google to be both unafraid to take risks and long-term in its thinking, we can interpret all of its actions as spending as little as possible on patents while getting opponents to spend as much as possible and simultaneously undermining software patents at large. Seems to me like Google is taking advantage of a growing anti-patent sentiment in the tech community that's beginning to spill over into the mainstream and capitalizing on the idea that the innovation-stifling patent regime is contributing to a stagnating economy. Exhibit A: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federal-trade-commission-intellectual-property-expert-michel.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-02/google-hires-federa... Exhibit B: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/intellectual-property http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/in... Exhibit C: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/w... http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tuesday-podcast-the-patent-war http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/08/04/138934689/the-tues...
- kenjackson 15y ago
  Probably naively optimistic. ;-) The public generally doesn't care. The courts won't change course without congress. Congress won't make a big change. Minor reform at best (I doubt we'll see much more than what is already in the oven). The problem is that Android isn't viewed as innovative by most consumers. I think in a PR battle between Apple saying Google copies, and Google saying that Apple is blocking them from innovating -- Apple wins. And the other issue is that a lot of the patents at stake are HW patents. Undermining HW patents is a much harder sell.
  - rbanffy 15y ago
    > Congress won't make a big change. Every dollar Microsoft spends on patents cannot be spent on lobbies. And the other way around applies to Google: every dollar not spent chasing patents can be spent lobbying for patent reform. And, while that leaves hardware patents untouched, they are not the problem. Microsoft is extorting Google partners using bogus software patents, not hardware ones.
hn_decay 15y ago
Came out and said what? This is just providing more detail to exactly what Google said before. Discount whatever second hand noise you've read elsewhere: Google has been very consistent thus far (they derode patents when they made their $900 bid on the Nortel patents, for instance. They didn't learn to hate patents after losing), and this inside detail does in no way change or undermine what they said yesterday. Microsoft and Apple don't want Google to have defensive patents (patents that both of them know that they infringe on in droves, otherwise they wouldn't be concerned about them). They should have worked to remove all of these patents off the table as cheaply as possible. The available cash that MS+Apple simply dwarfs what Google has. Dwarfs is a gross exaggeration. Further both Apple and Microsoft have shareholder responsibility. Microsoft has already made questionable judgment calls to maintain the upper hand -- billions of dollars in patents to make a few hundred million a year in extortion fees, while empowering their own primary competitor (Apple)? It's extraordinary. Apple shareholders are going to start demanding their cash back if it looks like one giant ego pile. And Google can't quietly buy patents because the people selling want to get as much as possible for it. Well except for IBM who just wanted to stick a gank in Oracle. The fact that their current IP strategy seems to be to buy IP is absurd. Many of the patents that Microsoft and Apple are using against Android precede the mobile explosion. They are older companies, having had a long time of big profits to pay people to sit around submitting patent applications.

shabble 15y ago

The Nortel patent purse had over 6,000 patents, but InterDigital has over 8,800. If the winning bid on Nortel was $4.5 billion, InterDigital should be well north of $5 billion. Not quite sure where this logic comes from. Surely they're only valuable if they're relevant and strategically useful?

kenjackson 15y ago
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/samsung-is-said-to-examine-interdigital-s-patents-after-approach-for-bid.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/samsung-is-said-to-... InterDigital’s engineers invented some of the technology for high-speed mobile phone networks now used by the world’s biggest handset makers. This is a link on some of their "breakthroughs" covered in their patent portfolio: http://www.interdigital.com/patents/category/patent_portfolio http://www.interdigital.com/patents/category/patent_portfoli... "North" is the key word here. This could get crazy. I bet Nathan Myrvhold is laughing to the bank right now.
- corin_ 15y ago
  The issue is that, rather than making judgements like you have done, reporters have been finding it easy to base suggestions on the numbers, suggesting the reason they would be worth more is that there are more of them.
nextparadigms 15y ago
The only reason for the high price of Nortel patents was because all those big name companies got involved. If it's only Google and Apple the price for these patents might be much lower, maybe half. It all depends how Apple and Google want to play witch each other though.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

giberson 15y ago

Wait wait wait wait. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Having the license to the patent means you get to use the patented technology--no one can come after you. That's the protection, you get to use it. This is bullshit, Google didn't decline the offer because it didn't give them protection, they declined the offer because it didn't give them an ability use those patents against Microsoft.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
joebadmo 15y ago
You need to learn how defensive patents work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_patent_aggregation It's not just to stop from being sued over that particular patent, but to be able to use that patent to counter-sue when litigated for other patents. Google has yet to use any of its patents offensively.
- eridius 15y ago
  Google didn't argue that this patent purchase was for defensive reasons. They argued that it was for offensive reasons, that these patents could then be used to attack Google and force licensing fees onto Android. That entire argument is negated by the fact that Google had the option of bidding jointly on the patents and, therefore, having a license to them.
  - joebadmo 15y ago
    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; Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. Where did they argue that it was for offensive reasons?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

sriramk 15y ago

Here's the response to this response :) http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... On an unrelated note, this is a very different kind of MSFT PR, and almost completely brought about by Frank Shaw. In the old days, MSFT would have put out a boring press release filled with corporate speak. Frank has brought a real-time, plain-speak, slightly aggressive approach to dealing with crises like this one and the earlier Bing/Google toolbar spat. Interesting shift in PR strategy.

sek 15y ago
But he doesn't make a good impression, soon he has to explain why Microsoft is attacking android with patents. There was no "gotcha" and these people on Techcrunch see this whole thing as a reality show. It is sad because this is serious stuff, Microsoft is fighting Google with unfair methods.
- sriramk 15y ago
  Unfair is all relative - people think it is unfair Google is giving away Android for free by funding it with its search revenue. I don't agree with what MSFT is doing with Android patents but they have a stock answer which I'm sure they'll repeat.
  - sek 15y ago
    What are you doing on Hacker news? This is all about disrupting industries trough a better product. Android is free so this is obviously an improvement to something you have to pay for, or do you call Linux unfair? When Microsoft can't build a product that justifies a higher price that is their problem, Apple figured that out so it isn't impossible. Unfair (or use another word) is in my eyes trying to beat Google in anything other than the Product itself, for example forcing Android producers into paying extra with a broken patent system.
    - sriramk 15y ago
      First, minor nitpick - Apple is going after Android with various lawsuits as well. But let's keep that aside. Contrast these arguments - back in the 90s, MSFT was accused of killing off Netscape by essentially giving away a browser for free using the revenue from Windows and Office. One could argue that Google is doing the same thing, funding Android with its revenues from ads. Let's forget Android for a second -look at turn-by-turn navigation. That's an expensive product to build but Google, by giving it away for free (again, subsidized by its other revenues) and is causing serious trouble to other companies which have the misfortune of not having an alternative revenue source. Is it 'fair' that Google can basically disrupt industries by giving away things for free just because it gets money through another source? You can see how that argument could be made, whether it is right or wrong. I personally don't think any of this is either 'right' or 'wrong'. It's all business between corporate behemoths.

shareme 15y ago

Folks, the longer this goes on more startups lose.. TC should know better than to get involved in one-upmanship that hurts startups.. Whose startup among HN readers can afford patent lawsuits say if either MSFT or Google come knocking? So where is the coverage of how dismal the current patent reform legislation at TC?

polyfractal 15y ago
There was a Stanford Entrepeneural Thought Leader Seminar where the speaker (I forget who) said: "The day big corporations come knocking at your door threatening lawsuits...that is the day you know you've made it". No startup will have to worry about patent litigation from giants, unless they are perceived a threat. And if they are perceived a threat, they are significant enough to combat or negotiate their way out of it.

wuster 15y ago

I'm getting really sick of MG's sensationalist writing. He's the reason I've unsubscribed from TC.

f7u12 15y ago
TC in general seems to have been very sensationalist lately. I now take them about as seriously as I do Daily Mail.
zmalltalker 15y ago
For the same reason, I created a RSS feed of TC which excludes anything written by MG: http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.run?_id=3b4a015445a904d76f63651d370c5d25&_render=rss http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.run?_id=3b4a015445a904d76f... Feel free to use it!

redthrowaway 15y ago

>The Nortel patent purse had over 6,000 patents, but InterDigital has over 8,800. If the winning bid on Nortel was $4.5 billion, InterDigital should be well north of $5 billion. That's $5BB that won't be used to create new products and technologies. It's $5BB that won't be used to hire new employees, and it's $5BB taken out of the pockets of shareholders. At least taxes go back into the economy. They might as well throw the money in a pile and set it alight.

palish 15y ago

Offtopic: What movie is that screenshot from? ( http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/f1.jpeg?w=288 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/f1.jpeg?... )

dhugiaskmak 15y ago
Face/Off http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119094/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119094/
- palish 15y ago
  Aw. Was hoping to discover a decent older movie. EDIT: That's more like it... the next TechCrunch article uses a screenshot from Reservoir Dogs, which was a pretty awesome movie IMO. ( http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/reservoir-dogs-fig-5.jpeg?w=288 http://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/reservoi... )

badclient 15y ago

Can someone translate this? What exactly is google arguing in their response to MS? It sounded to me that google's response was that they didn't partner because then they could not keep those patents just to themselves. Somehow I feel I'm misunderstanding it? That sounds too dumb of a response to be accurate.

ZeroGravitas 15y ago
Google claimed that Android was being attacked with patents. Microsoft responded that they invited Google to jointly buy patents. Microsoft is currently threatening Android hardware partners with their existing patents to extract fees. Patents jointly owned by Google and Microsoft would not affect this, patents owned only by Google could force Microsoft to back down.