

Microsoft Responds To Google’s Response To Microsoft’s Response - acak
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/

======
ddlatham
In other words, both sides agree that Google didn't want to enter into a
partnership to acquire patents that they couldn't use to sue Microsoft, Apple,
et al.

Google claims that such suits would only be to defend itself when sued ("no
first strike", just mutually assured destruction via countersuits), but
Microsoft hasn't replied to that claim.

Apparently, without the ability to use these patents to countersue
defensively, Google did not consider them worthwhile to pursue.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Still doesn't make sense to me. Aren't they still better off with one less set
of Patents they can get sued for? It's as if they picked the worst of two bad
options.

~~~
ddlatham
Perhaps at the time they declined, they thought they still had a chance of
winning the patents without giving them to Microsoft and Apple too. Or perhaps
they thought that it wouldn't be worth the money they would have to chip in to
the group to share them. Both are plausible reasons.

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
I agree, that is pretty reasonable. It is pretty straight forward too so I
really should have thought of that myself.

------
tzs
I'm hoping this eventually ends up in something amusing like the press release
exchange Amazon and Barnes & Nobel had a few years ago. Barnes & Noble was
purchasing a book distributor, and Amazon released a press release commenting
on that, where they compared themselves to David fighting the B&N Goliath:
[http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...](http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000795985&EDATE=)

Barnes & Noble wasted no time in responding, and pretty much thoroughly pwned
Amazon. I can't find B&N's release online anymore to cite, though.

Amazon's response? I shall quote it in its entirety:

    
    
       SEATTLE, Nov. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- "Oh."
    

[http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...](http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-
bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/11-06-1998/0000796268&EDATE=)

~~~
robtoo
From <http://puck.nether.net/~rtucker/faq/funny/amazonbn.html> the B&N press
release which elicited the succinct reply:

 _NEW YORK, NY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--November 6, 1998--The following is a
statement by barnesandnoble.com

With regard to the acquisition of the Ingram Book Group, Barnes & Noble, Inc.
is amused to read Jeff Bezos' quote, where he describes himself as an
independent bookseller: "Goliath is always in range of a good slingshot."

Well, Mr. Bezos, what with a market capitalization of some $6 billion and more
than four million customers, we suppose you know a Goliath when you see one.
Your company is now worth more than Barnes & Noble, Borders, and all of the
independent booksellers combined. Might we suggest that slingshots and pot
shots should not be part of your arsenal._

------
MikeCapone
That was pretty weak. Microsoft has a history of attacking with patents, so
they can't pretend this offends their delicate sensibilities and that they are
shocked that some would want to have ways to defend themselves agains them.

~~~
rjd
Microsoft has a history of doing a lot of things. Both moral and ethically
good and bad. Its the nature of being a mega corps and monopolies.

My biggest surprise is people don't seem to think Google ever have ulterior
motives, even when proven in court, or when smashing smaller industries to
bits.

~~~
MikeCapone
Please elaborate on what you mean by this.

~~~
rjd
In what way? seems like a straight forward response to me. Corporations do
what corporations do, I personally can't see any difference in Microsofts
behavior to Googles. They are both as benevolent and malicious as each other
in my book.

~~~
MikeCapone
Please give examples of what you mean here:

"My biggest surprise is people don't seem to think Google ever have ulterior
motives, even when proven in court, or when smashing smaller industries to
bits."

~~~
rjd
Sorry.

Timely enough someone has started this :
<http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/06/ive-abandoned-my-boy/>

and hacker news commentary: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855559>

Heres a quick search result: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-
newman/a-window-into-go...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-
newman/a-window-into-googles-mon_b_859582.html)

I guess I don't have to justify the nature of fan boys. People that have made
there opinions up and will never change there minds no matter what.

Anecdotally I've been dealing with the business side of Google for a while
now, and in 2007 I decided that they where the most evil corporation on the
planet.

Firstly it started with sub-standard industry/customer tainting products.
Destroying my friends companies but releasing inferior products for free.

Then some extremely negative things to say from my time dealing with them over
the OOXML ISO process, and more recently working in the news media. I lost all
respect for open source community after that process (but thats another
story).

More recently dealing with a large news organistion I can say they are
controlling manipulative, two faced, liars. I guess most people don't do
business with them.

My personal opinion is they are devaluing everything, restricting income
streams to small and new companies, dictating business models, and most
importantly the creation of the attention economy is destroying the arts.

------
gojomo
Now Microsoft is being disingenuous.

The only 'defense' against patents Microsoft holds, and can prosecute against
Google, are patents that Google holds, and can prosecute against Microsoft.
Sadly, that's how it works.

Acquiring new patents, held jointly, could only be used against third parties.
Of course if Microsoft thinks it has the momentary advantage, it'd like to
freeze that advantage forever by making all new patents jointly shared.

Nuclear states are always the biggest fans of non-proliferation!

Unless of course Microsoft wasn't just offering to bid jointly, but license
all prior IP mutually in perpetuity at the same time? Such a true non-
aggression pact would be interesting, if it did not run afoul of antitrust
coordination concerns.

~~~
fleitz
Either you like to use the weapons at your disposal or you don't. The whole
defensive / offensive idea is just a smoke screen. It's exactly like non-
proliferation!

Believing Google wants patents for 'defensive' purposes is like believing Iran
wants to enrich uranium to generate energy. Google has never used patents
offensively because it would get destroyed by anyone worth suing. If a serious
adsense/search competitor took 50% of Google's revenues and had no patents
they'd be sued into oblivion.

------
latch
If Microsoft and Google had bought the patents together, would it have also
protected Android handset makers?

~~~
aerique
Google thinks it doesn't, which is why they didn't want to get into this deal
together with Microsoft.

------
levigross
+1 on the title

------
i2o
This is turning into a big pissing match. If Google was really focused on
innovating instead of patenting like they said they wanted to do a few days a
go they would let this drop and focus on innovating. The real proof is in the
execution, not the banter.

The real question is do the lawyers get to charge back to the business for
every the tweet? Because if so these guys are racking up some big bucks.

~~~
sorbus
> If Google was really focused on innovating instead of patenting like they
> said they wanted to do a few days a go they would let this drop and focus on
> innovating.

Because clearly everyone at Google is spending all of their time on this
argument, leading to all innovation and development in the company grinding to
a halt.

