Allow me to inject some perspective. 1) For all the talk of Microsoft and Apple "abusing patents", it was actually Google that had to pay 14 million in damages

Allow me to inject some perspective. 1) For all the talk of Microsoft and Apple "abusing patents", it was actually Google that had to pay 14 million in damages for actually doing just that. Let's just not forget that before deciding who should be "alienating the tech community". However, Google's PR really is very good, and unfortunately, most people here accept it without critical thought because it confirms their biases. 2) This is business, and business is war. Giving away Android for free was a direct attack on Microsoft's and Apple's business model. They are simply responding in kind. Most people here root for Google simply because they give away tons of really cool stuff for free, and/or because they seem to be "more aligned" with free/open source, which appears to be the dominant religion 'round these parts. However, people elsewhere would see this as perfectly natural. 3) Google is very weak on the patent front, and they know it. So while they hustle to buy up patents from all sorts of sources, they simultaneously try to spin the patent system as "broken" and their own moves as "defensive" in an attempt to reduce their disadvantage in the long term. It may seem counter-intuitive: why simultaneously buy patents and work to weaken their value? Because buying patents is just a short term defensive move. In the long term, Google would be perfectly happy to not have a patent system at all because all their competitive advantage is locked away in their data centers. This is a luxury Apple and Microsoft do not have. They put out products that anyone anywhere can copy, so they would prefer having a patent system. 4) As mentioned below, Google had an option of joining the consortium, but decided to go it alone. Drummond's blog post says it would not have helped Android, but that is very shallow reasoning. They could have always joined in and negotiated the rights to indemnify Android vendors in exchange for contributing a lot more towards the winning bid. Maybe the consortium would not have agreed to it -- we'll never know, because Google peremptorily declined to join in. But I have no idea why they though they could outbid a consortium of multiple giants in the space. 5) As mentioned in TFA, there is some truth to the argument that Rockstar is actually independent of Microsoft and Apple. I know of patent trolls that have funding from e.g. hedge funds, but operate entirely independently. Heck, IV is a perfectly good example. They have funding from Google themselves, and yet they turned around and sued Motorola! Now, allow me to address your theory: You posit that this may invoke the ire of the "tech community" and this would be a disadvantage to Apple and Microsoft. Some questionable assumptions: 1) The tech community in general has a similar world view as the HN (or is it SV?) bubble. Trust me on this, HN is an enormous echo chamber. If you ask software engineers outside this bubble -- which is, you know, most of the world -- about patents, you'll get three responses: a) "What's a patent?" (No, really.) b) "I don't mind patents." c) "Having a patent as an achievement!" 2) The tech community, even if it does by some remote chance share your world view, won't care. This is business as usual, and has historically always been so. Now you may move the goal posts and say that by "tech community" you mean "the good ones", the "hackers". Again, I'm not so sure. Consider the NSA revelations: All the comments on HN are rife with outrage. Yet would you believe, even for a minute, that the NSA does not have the best of the best? Edit: I really do not wish to come across as supporting one company over another, and hope to maintain a neutral tone. I think all the companies involved are perfectly good companies to work for, and perfectly justified in what they're doing. I'm just trying to present a perspective that is somewhat lacking in most comments so far.