3 ms·
> "...and, presuming Google doesn't use patents like a troll..." Saw this this morning discussing how Google bought Motorola and is now demanding more royaltie
by tombrossman 12y ago
> "...and, presuming Google doesn't use patents like a troll..."
Saw this this morning discussing how Google bought Motorola and is now demanding more royalties for "standard-essential patents", after selling off Motorola (and keeping their patents to use in lawsuits like this): https://twitter.com/FioraAeterna/status/592775596712849408 https://twitter.com/FioraAeterna/status/592775596712849408
I don't follow this super closely and so can't say if the claim is 100% true, but it sure was interesting to read about.
- sukilot 12y agoReading the geekwite, it is unclear if the lawsuit is about royalties for pre-Google-ownership of patents, or after, or both.
- minot 12y agoAlso, it was Microsoft that targeted Android with patents on things such as FAT32. If you sue me, all gentlemanly agreements are off the table. Essential patent is a loaded term. I argue all non-trivial patents are essential. If a software patent isn't standard-essential (I'd argue standard is yet another loaded term because FAT32 is a de facto standard for interoperability) it should not be a patent at all. I think you'll agree.
- throwawaykf05 12y agoBut "taking gentlemanly agreements off the table" is not all they did. For all the noise Google made about abuse of patents in the smartphone wars, they, through Motorola, were the only company that was actually penalized buy a federal court for abusing patents, and made to pay damages to Microsoft. Sure the lawsuit started before Google acquired Motorola, but this judgement happened two years after they completed the acquisition. I'm sure you'll agree that asking billions for patents that a court finally decided were only worth a couple million is pretty egregious.