So now you're moving the goal posts. Now it's MAD (which I don't deny). I think we're done here. You're also bringing up irrelevancies like wage fixing: true, b

So now you're moving the goal posts. Now it's MAD (which I don't deny). I think we're done here. You're also bringing up irrelevancies like wage fixing: true, but not patents. the claim was "they cross-license." As I said if you read, the myth is "plausible" but not "confirmed." yes, there are some cross-licenses. No, they are not universal. I gave examples of obvious ones that nevertheless don't exist. On Motorola: I'm afraid I have to claim superior knowledge on that one. At the time, Google was actually hiring patent acquisition people, and in fact, I was interviewing them. They probably fell for the myth that you fell for. They stopped that pretty quickly, when it became clear that most of Motorola's patents were worthless. I've looked them over myself. They were worth less than nothing: it meant that suits against Motorola now had to be defended. In other words, it was a big mistake that they undid.