4 ms·

"I never said it wasn’t OK for “Google to try and buy the same patents to not be sued.” Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle — they’re all playing the game. If Goog

by A-K 15y ago

"I never said it wasn’t OK for “Google to try and buy the same patents to not be sued.” Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle — they’re all playing the game. If Google had won the Nortel patents, and used those patents to secure licensing agreements for other patents (from, say, Microsoft and Apple) — that’s how the patent game is played. What I’m complaining about isn’t Google playing the game, but rather their insistent whining about their competitors only after they lost the game." Can't say I disagree.

stanleydrew 15y ago
Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.
- sasidharm 15y ago
  How is it unfair?
  - stanleydrew 15y ago
    Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post. Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.
    - sasidharm 15y ago
      I read Google's post and Microsoft's response and Google's update to the post and Microsoft's response to the update as well: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... Considering all arguments, I think there is more to this story than what Google told in the blog post. The fact that they did not even mention that they were offered to be part of the joint bid in the initial post raises a lot of questions.
      - stanleydrew 15y ago
        Its fine for you to think that. I'm just discussing the merits of Gruber's post. I think he is trying to spin as whining what Google believes to be a legitimate claim of anticompetitive behavior.
- A-K 15y ago
  Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?
  - 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; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android... From the original Google blog post.
    - A-K 15y ago
      But Google had the choice to be a part of the consortium, according to Microsoft's counsel. Assuming that invitation was indeed extended, how does that jive at all with what you just quoted?
      - joebadmo 15y ago
        If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. 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. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it. From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
        A-K 15y ago
        I did confused Nortel and Novell. My mistake. The biggest issue I guess I have is that, in addition to causing a fair bit of confusion, David Drummond didn't do Google any favors by originally writing as if they were also excluded from being included in the Novell buy. It's easy to backtrack once your competition has some illuminating facts to put out into the open. I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.

by A-K 15y ago

stanleydrew 15y ago

Google isn't complaining about losing. It's complaining about the unfair way it believes the winners won.

sasidharm 15y ago
How is it unfair?
- stanleydrew 15y ago
  Read Google's post again. That's where it's explained. Note that the following is not necessarily my opinion, but my interpretation of Google's post. Google believes that a cartel of competitors formed to combine resources with the main purpose of using those resources to bid on IP to use against Android. The winning bid didn't reflect any individual competitor's valuation of the asset, but rather the aggregate of their valuations given that they all plan to use the asset as leverage against Android. Google thinks this is anticompetitive.
  - sasidharm 15y ago
    I read Google's post and Microsoft's response and Google's update to the post and Microsoft's response to the update as well: http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside... Considering all arguments, I think there is more to this story than what Google told in the blog post. The fact that they did not even mention that they were offered to be part of the joint bid in the initial post raises a lot of questions.
    - stanleydrew 15y ago
      Its fine for you to think that. I'm just discussing the merits of Gruber's post. I think he is trying to spin as whining what Google believes to be a legitimate claim of anticompetitive behavior.
A-K 15y ago
Unfair? Through legitimately bidding higher than 3.14 billion dollars?
- 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; seeking $15 licensing fees for every Android device; attempting to make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android... From the original Google blog post.
  - A-K 15y ago
    But Google had the choice to be a part of the consortium, according to Microsoft's counsel. Assuming that invitation was indeed extended, how does that jive at all with what you just quoted?
    - joebadmo 15y ago
      If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. 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. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it. From the update to the original google blog post. Maybe you should read the whole thing. It's not that long. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-a...
      - A-K 15y ago
        I did confused Nortel and Novell. My mistake. The biggest issue I guess I have is that, in addition to causing a fair bit of confusion, David Drummond didn't do Google any favors by originally writing as if they were also excluded from being included in the Novell buy. It's easy to backtrack once your competition has some illuminating facts to put out into the open. I'm of the opinion that there aren't really any true winners, at least in the public's eye, in patent bidding wars. But Google has definitely stumbled through the post-bidding PR.