3 ms·

Serious question; would it have been cheaper to just license the patents on a royalty basis?

• robot 15y ago
  That would be like buying the bullets instead of the weapon.
  • barista 15y ago
    But I thought Google's patent play is a defensive play. So they should be looking for shields and armors not guns and bullets.
    • kanamekun 15y ago
      Mutually Assured Destruction is a defensive play... it's a recognized form of deterrence: Mutually Assured Destruction is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm thereafter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
• wmf 15y ago
  Do you mean from IBM or from Apple and MS?
• nl 15y ago
  If you mean licence them from IBM: I doubt it. Google want the patents to protect its partners, and trying to arrange a licence like that would be hard. Also, protecting its partners means some are likely to be tested in court and fail, which will kill their value to IBM. If you mean from Apple: Very doubtful. Apple wants to stop their competitors, not make money from them. If you mean from Microsoft: Possibly for each manufacture, but in aggregate almost certainly not.