
Google Threw A Punch, Microsoft Fires Back With A Missile - InfinityX0
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/03/microsoft-just-kicked-google-in-the-nuts/
======
hristov
That does not mean anything. Yes MS may have asked Google to partner with them
to buy the patents but no-one knows what the terms were. A good attorney can
make an agreement that allows Google to be sued on the patents even if they
are co-owners. Or the agreement may say that any Android phone manufacturer
can be sued on the patents by Microsoft, and Google does not have the power to
give those manufacturers licenses.

So an undisclosed offer made in private does not mean much. If Microsoft had
made their offer public they may use it to make a point, but as things stand
now this supposed offer is best ignored.

PS: I should also note that this "we made them a generous offer and they
refused" statement is a trick often used by PR people and politicians to muddy
the water.

~~~
econgeeker
You're in error.

This was MSFT offering for google to talk about joining in the bidding. Google
turned them down without knowing what the terms were, because the terms hadn't
even been discussed. This was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms.

Google has been caught with its senior counsel telling a blatant lie, in
public. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see people trying to spin it so
hard...

~~~
magicalist
You've asserted this like four times. Is there actually more information on
this story available than what was in the tweets and email?

~~~
econgeeker
The email makes it pretty clear:
[http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says...](http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says.google.could.have.joined.patent.bid/)

~~~
magicalist
The entire relevant text from the email is "After talking with people here, it
sounds as though for various reasons a joint bid wouldn’t be advisable for us
on this one. But I appreciate your flagging it, and we’re open to discussing
other similar opportunities in the future."

That does not back up your claims. Humorously, the article you linked to,
though confusing Novell and Nortel, clearly points out that no context is
given for any prior communication (which would be necessary for evaluating
your claims of "this was an offer to talk, not an offer of terms"), and gives
yet another reasonable argument for why google wouldn't want to agree to a
joint bid:

"The search firm might have felt bound by the terms of its "stalking horse"
bid, which would let it break up any existing patent licensing terms if it
won; it would never have had that option in the winning group as companies
with Nortel patent licenses, like Microsoft, would have insisted on keeping
them intact."

~~~
sunchild
I agree. There are many reasons why Google may have rejected the offer to bid
jointly – and the offer's terms aren't clear at all. Also, posting private
intercompany emails is unprofessional, even in response to a misleading tweet
from your competitor. Even less professional is the "divide and conquer"
positioning that characterizes Google's lawyers as lacking internal
communication/coordination. Frankly, I get a bad smell from either side in
this latest Twitter slapfight between MSFT and GOOG.

------
sriramk
Ex-MSFT employee here, enjoying the fact that I can comment on HN on MSFT
legal affairs for once :).

I love Frank.X.Shaw's move here (hiring him from Waggner Edstorm was one of
MSFT's best moves). Google is essentially trying to spin a situation where
they were invited to be a part of a bid as a anti-competitive move. I'm
slightly surprised that Google didn't see this coming - Drummond must have
known that any public spat would lead to MSFT digging up any email threads
between the two companies, especially those which make it seem like MSFT is
trying to reach out to Google.

~~~
guelo
No matter what PR spin anyone puts on it Microsoft is a destructive parasite
in the smartphone marketplace. Extorting money out of android manufacturers
after it failed to compete is one of the most disgusting spectacles I've seen
in the industry.

~~~
yalogin
When you put emotion into the analysis it seems disgusting. This is business.
Purely from a business standpoint do you think MS (or Google) would take it
lying down when a competitor undercuts their product with a free product?
Don't for a minute think Google made Android open source for philanthropic
reasons. It did it purely because it wanted to use the open source as a
strategic weapon to get a foothold in the field. I do believe Google strongly
believes in their "Do not evil" mantra but this particular one is all
business. This is NOT the linux-ms battle again. Linux/GNU was more like a
movement without a business/monetary aspirations behind it. Redhat and others
sprung around the ecosystem as service providers later on. Android is
started/released by a business to make money. So MS is dealing with a
different beast here. Google cannot think it would get away by giving their
software for free. Nothing is free. It just takes time for things to settle
down. The mobile world is still in its infancy.

TL;DR -- Do not put emotions into a business analysis.

~~~
guelo
It's funny hearing someone defending Microsoft claiming that the mobile world
is in its infancy when Microsoft had a huge lead in the mobile world 6-7 years
ago and had created a great ecosystem with tons of innovation. Then they
inexplicably decided to stop developing their OS after Windows Mobile 6.
Probably some moronic executive figured they could extract more rents that way
and squandered the massive opportunity. How those executives all the way up to
Ballmer haven't been fired is a mystery of Microsoft's dysfunction. Now those
same morons, who run one of the great tech companies of our times, have
decided that they will compete via the legal system and conniving business
deals, instead of using technology. It should be criminal. I have no respect
for them or anyone that works for those assholes.

~~~
Toady
The mobile world is still in its infancy, regardless of how many years ago
Microsoft was working on it. No offense, but you come off as far too emotional
to take seriously in a discussion. You start with some valid points about
management, but then you act like they personally spit on your car.

There's a very valid point you didn't address, which is that Google is relying
on its search monopoly profits to pump a free product into a new market in
order to destroy existing competitors there. Regardless of how you feel about
Google or Android, that is a behavior Microsoft was once criticized for when
it made Internet Explorer free in order to destroy Netscape. Just something to
think about.

It's important to maintain an objective perspective on all mega-corporations
with monopoly power to make sure that your emotions aren't preventing you from
recognizing a villain. Is Google a villain? In my opinion, they're on their
way based on their behavior of the last couple of years.

~~~
Zaim2
Except last time I checked Android isn't bundled with existence as a human.
The handsets aren't free the the public unless subsidized by contract, which
is the same deal as competitors.

The only "free" part is licensing to OEMS, and they still need to pay for R&D
for making physical devices. So that part has no bearing on OS-creators who
also happen to manufacture their own devices like Apple and RIM.

------
rbanffy
I am confused. Why would Google want to jointly bid on patents in a way they
could not be used to protect itself and its partners from Microsoft?

Microsoft's council can't be so naïve.

Edit: by refusing to participate, Google indicated that either they wanted the
patents in order to be able to defend against Microsoft or that they didn't
find them worth the effort. The proposal could pretty much be the way
Microsoft used to measure Google's interest and intentions

~~~
thoughtsimple
While you are almost certainly correct you are missing the point about
Google's blog post. The lawyer who wrote is demonstrably lying about the
situation.

"They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the
“CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the
“Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t
get them;"

If Google was offered a chance to bid along with Microsoft, how is Microsoft
trying to make sure Google didn't get them? While it may not have been in
Google's best interest to partner with Microsoft, they can hardly argue in
good faith that Microsoft is trying to withhold those patents from Google in
some sort of conspiracy.

~~~
yohui
Microsoft et al. don't want Google to have the patents _usuable against them_.
Either outbidding or co-owning works.

Microsoft had enough patents that it was more important Google did _not_ have
the patents for itself than for Microsoft to add to its own arsenal.

Google might have instead accused Microsoft of denying it _leverage_ , in the
face of Microsoft et al.'s mountain of existing patents, but at the time that
probably seemed a verbose way of making the same point: that Android's
competitors would like to kill it with patents.

(We haven't list sight of the fact that B&N, HTC, and others have been
targeted for using Android, while the same can't be said for WP7 licensees,
have we?)

------
chc
The Microsoft tweets seem to (probably intentionally) ignore the obvious
reason why Google would want the patents — to create a mutually-assured
destruction scenario that convinces Apple and Microsoft to get off its back.
Sharing the patents with Apple and Microsoft would keep Google at a
disadvantage just like not having them would.

~~~
MikeCapone
Indeed, the patents used for defense have to be different from the patents you
are attacked with. Sharing patents means they can't attack you with _those_ ,
but if they have a lot more other patents, you still aren't protected.

------
orky56
Google seems to have one foot in the water and the other out. They lose their
credibility either way. They bid a high amount ($3.14bil) in the Nortel bid
and went alone by their choosing in the Novell bid. Their press is just
spinning the story AND their strategy based on unforeseen outcomes. I get it
that they are using patents just as leverage to keep Android free or as cheap
as possible. In the end however, they are competing with other mobile
platforms for market share based on the best combination of price, quality,
and user experience. It's anyone's game and as long as it's legal, there are
no rules.

Edited the Nortel and Novell discrepancy.

~~~
doe88
I don't remember exactly if at their last bid they were alone, but one thing I
recall to have read is that at least at one point they did bid teaming along
with Intel.

~~~
orky56
I apologize but I was referring to the OP's article about Google getting the
offer to team up with MS but choosing to go alone at it, for the Novell deal.
I combined the $3.14bil Nortel bid with the info in the article about the
Novell bid. My mistake. Will update my previous post. Novell and Nortel, this
patent stuff is already confusing and these names don't help! jk

------
jigs_up
Mobile companies such as HTC, Motorla and Samsung are being forced to pay
Microsoft licensing fees for their Android phones because of patents Microsoft
owns. Google needs its own arsenal of patents in order to prevent the
situation from getting worse. How is Android supposed to prosper if mobile
companies are being forced to pay Microsoft to use it? Owning the patents
jointly with Microsoft gives Google nothing to use against Microsoft,
therefore defeating the whole purpose of owning the patents.

------
akkartik
Rebuttal: [http://fury.com/2011/08/twitter-is-the-new-soundbyte-and-
tha...](http://fury.com/2011/08/twitter-is-the-new-soundbyte-and-thats-not-
good)

~~~
sriramk
His post doesn't address this - Google bidding alongside MSFT and winning on
these patents would have taken these patents off the table as far as any
future litigation goes, basically making these one less set of patents for
either Google or MSFT to worry about.

Does he expect MSFT to somehow help Google build a defensive portfolio against
it?

------
tensor
I think the take home message of all of this, more than ever, is that software
patents are damaging to innovation and an overall detriment to the industry.

These companies should be competing on performance and features, not with
lawyers over whether a linked list is an innovation (example taken out of
context, but some of these patents are no better than the multiply linked list
patent covered a year ago).

~~~
econgeeker
I posit that android would not be on the market in the touch-screen form it is
now, if Apple hadn't made its inventions public due to the patent process.

If you consider android innovative, then the patent process saved google the
7+ years Apple spent developing the iPhone and allowed them to get to the
market much quicker with a touch screen phone (they'd been previously working
on a blackberry style OS for android.)

I am the inventor of two software patents. One of which involved solving the
visual glitches that appear in online games due to the high latency of playing
over a modem. This patent involved a lot of timing issues, and was pretty
narrow.

However it was claimed on slashdot that we "patented the idea of online
gaming!!!!"

Later, in a discussion list, they claimed we'd patented the idea of IRC!

People seem to presume that patents are on ideas, and that people are
patenting really obvious ideas.

In the case of the patents I've been involved in, that is not what has
happened. In fact, the portrayal of what was covered by the patent didn't
match the patent at all, and it is clear that the people putting forward those
patents as examples of bad patents were, frankly misrepresenting them.

Every time I've seen a bogus patent claim and actually read the patent, I've
found this to be the case as well. (I don't remember the linked-list example,
so haven't read that particular one.)

I'm not saying that bogus patents don't exist. I'm sure you can get things by
the examiner.

But the system has a solution for this-- if your patent is bogus then it won't
stand up in court. If prior art exists, then you run the risk of spending a
lot of money, only to have the patent nullified when someone presents prior
art. (And I mean real prior art, not the kind of stuff that people claim is
prior art, like the claim that IRC is prior art for solving clock jitter in 3D
online games)

The patent system, as with anything else that relies on the meager US court
system, is expensive... but there is no need for reform, that I can see, as
all these allegedly bogus patents would be quickly thrown out if they really
were as obvious as is claimed and if there really was the abundance of prior
art, as is claimed.

Google is certainly capable, both financially and intellectually, of getting a
bogus patent thrown out. There's no reason they should be calling on the
federal government to intervene with a political "solution" on their behalf...
unless they know that there isn't actually prior art and the patents are, in
fact, legitimate.

In fact, I think googles call for reform is an admission that the patents
aren't bogus after all.

Edit: I didn't change the text above, but want to clarify- I'm responsible for
some claims on one of these patents, though not named as an inventor (I didn't
realize the significance at the time.) For the other I am the sole inventor,
but it hasn't been brought forth as "bogus" in a public forum yet, though, for
those who don't read it carefully, they could easily make the claim. This is
why I'm being vague about the specific patents. Previous experience on Hacker
News tells me that if I wasn't vague the topic would turn to how those patents
are so obviously "bogus" (to people who haven't read more than the
headline)... and well, frankly my name is on them. I really don't to be
discriminated against in business for having a pr-intellectual property
position. The current climate makes that fear seem pretty legitimate.

~~~
VanL
I haven't looked at the patents that you mention, so I can't comment on your
patent(s) specifically. I can comment on patents generally, though.

I am a patent lawyer specializing in patent reexamination - i.e., my day-to-
day job is evaluating and invalidating patents.

There is a lot of truth to what you say that what a patent "covers" is grossly
misrepresented in the technical press. There is some justification for the
popular misinterpretation of claim scope, though; I can't tell you how many
people discover, years later, that they have "invented" wifi - or VPNs - or
any other successful standard you might care to name.

One good example of this is the RIM v. NTP case. The NTP patents were about
pagers. It was later that they realized that they had "invented" email (i.e.
sending electronic messages to a hand-held device). When you read the original
disclosure, though, it is obvious they had no such thing in mind.

Further, you are right that most patents have more complexity than the high
level summary would indicate. Does that mean that the patents are valid? No
way. I personally have seen 30-40 patents that I would consider to have _any_
valid claims after a full prior art search is done-and that is after having
looked at many thousand patents. My personal kill rate on patents that I have
dealt with is in the high 90th percentile.

Bonus tip: as an uncredited inventor, you have a very valuable asset-
particularly if that patent is being asserted.

~~~
gruseom
_My personal kill rate on patents that I have dealt with is in the high 90th
percentile._

Perhaps add contact info to your HN profile? The community here includes
people who might eventually need your services.

A question: how prominent, really, is that region of East Texas where we hear
that most of these suits get filed? Does it make it significantly more
difficult to do your work? I'm always shocked when I hear about that. It seems
an outright corruption of the system, like the hanging judges of the past.

Edit: I see you already mentioned this
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2845398>) but I would like to hear
anything more that you have to say. Oh, and please keep posting here. You
clearly know what you're talking about..

------
extension
"Sorry Google but we offered to collude _with_ you and you turned us down, so
we had to collude _against_ you"

Is this how rotten Microsoft has become? They don't even grasp what they are
being accused of.

EDIT: I really wish people would reply with their opinion rather than just
downvoting. Or at least do both. I thought it was an interesting observation
that I haven't seen anyone make: Google complains about Microsoft's ethics and
they respond with a point about strategy. Do they even understand the
difference?

~~~
amartya916
More like, joint bidders had a greater chance of getting the bounty, Google
chose to ignore Microsoft's proposal. Apple took them up on the offer. That's
how childish Google has become (or rather their legal and PR teams).

~~~
extension
I don't understand why Google not wanting to team up with MS weakens their
argument. If anything, it's quite consistent with it. But one way or another,
what ultimately happened is that MS teamed up with Google's competitors to
bully them with bullshit patents. That Google may have had a chance to avoid
it doesn't make it any less wrong.

~~~
econgeeker
The only reason to not team up with Microsoft, et. al, is if google wanted to
use the patents against them. If google simply wanted to be immune to claims
from the Novell patents, they could have joined the group and saved money (vs.
bidding by themselves against the group.)

Further, you make two assertions here: "MS teamed up with Google's competitors
to bully them with bullshit patents. "

You haven't shown that MSFT has bullied google, nor that the patents are
"bullshit".

If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior
art.

~~~
VanL
You say "If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court
with prior art."

this is false. Nothing is ever easy in court, and invalidating patents is
especially so-by design. There is a presumption of validity that attaches by
law to every issued patent. In layman's terms, that means that the deck is
stacked against anyone who tries to invalidate a patent in court.

Further, validity in court is decided in two parts. The first part is when the
judge - a 50 year old who did history or poli sci undergrad - "construes" the
claims by deciding what they mean. This frequently leads to some marvelous
interpretations of terms. At least the judge has a college education and
_tries_ to get it right.

Next, the "facts" about how the patent claims apply to the accused technology
are determined by a jury. Distressingly often, this jury is in East Texas,
where there are two undergraduate degrees and ten people who _have ever used
the Internet_ in the 100-person jury pool.

You think I'm kidding. Or exaggerating. I'm not.

I have often thought that I could write a legal thriller with a helping of Dan
Brown-style "all the facts and cases discussed in this book are real." people
are astounded when it is explained to them.

------
sek
Microsoft attacked Android Phone producers, Google needs to defend them
"against" Microsoft.

A bidding with Microsoft wouldn't make sense at all.

------
jdp23
Well-crafted tweets by MS execs. Pass the popcorn!

~~~
myko
Not really. Google needs these patents to protect themselves from suits by MS
and Apple, how could they make a cross-licensing deal if they co-owned these
patents with the very companies they are trying to protect themselves against?

~~~
econgeeker
Two points: 1) Apple has never sued google, to my knowledge, and there are no
active lawsuits currently. I'm not aware of any suits from Microsoft either.
2) IF Apple were to sue google, it would be over Patents resulting from Apple
developed technology, not patents Apple bought defensively.

I'm unaware of any case of Apple suing a company for violating a patent that
Apple bought. However, Apple does sue companies for violating patents on
Apple's inventions. Apple is not a patent troll, they are simply protecting
their inventions.

If Google had chosen to enter the bidding, the terms of the agreement could
easily have included a cross-licensing deal, as these are how these things are
often done.

In fact, entering the bidding with these companies would have been the
cheapest and most effective way to neutralize any claim they might have had on
Google over these patents.

If Google had entered the group they would have gotten a license on them (why
else would google contribute to the bid?) and the cost of that would have been
less than bidding for the whole thing by itself, by definition.

I think google wanted the whole thing for itself, in the case of Nortel, and
lost, and is now crying foul because it didn't get its way in an auction it
didn't take very seriously in the first place.

~~~
weavejester
_Apple is not a patent troll, they are simply protecting their inventions._

Apple's patents, like many software patents, tend to involve obvious
techniques and algorithms that have been carefully obfuscated by patent
lawyers.

Using such patents offensively is not so much about protecting Apple's
innovations; it's more about preventing competition. This is beneficial for
Apple, but bad for consumers and the overall health of the market.

------
yalurker
Google says the group of major players colluding together in a joint bid for
patents is anti-competitive. Google did not want to join this anti-competitive
collusion. How is this inconsistent, shocking, or bad?

Couldn't the simple explanation be "If we join forces with Microsoft and Apple
to jointly buy these patents, the DoJ is going to come down on all of us for
illegal anti-competitive behavior"? Why are people acting like Google did
something wrong by not wanting to join the cartel that they are now publicly
saying is anti-competitive and that the DoJ should impose limits on?

------
aaronsw
One interesting possibility: Google planned to only use the patents
defensively but the joint bid would have required them participating in
offensive action, which they refuse to do.

~~~
jstedfast
That is obviously not the case as Microsoft immediately sold back the Novell
patents to Attachmate and so cannot participate in any offensive action.

------
blinkingled
Google's punch was related to Nortel Patents, Microsoft's misfired missile
carried _Novell_ patents as the warhead.

"Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We
asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."

So Google may still have a point that Nortel patents were gobbled up by Apple
and MSFT to strangle Android just as the Novell ones are.

------
Hyena
Doesn't this suggest that MS tried to organize a cartel to put a lock on the
wireless industry? The major players all coming together to purchase patent
portfolios and agreeing not to sue _each other_ over it sure smells like an
anti-trust violation.

------
Joakal
"Bid with us or it's a shame that you didn't join the club.."

Or am I misunderstanding this article?

~~~
tzs
Google is saying Microsoft et al bought the Novell patents to keep Google from
having access to them. Google is trying to imply that this is so the patents
can be used against Google.

Microsoft is pointing out that Google was offered a chance to be part of the
buying group. That would have given Google access to them and precluded them
being used against Google. This makes it very likely that the buying group was
in fact buying the patents for defensive purposes, rather than to go after
Google.

~~~
myko
Not really. It's smooth PR by Microsoft which is apparently working, but the
reality is Google is looking for these patents to create cross-licensing deals
to protect themselves from current and future patent suits from companies like
Microsoft and Apple - cross-licensing deals that Google could not do if they
co-owned these patents with said companies.

~~~
AllenKids
A sage once said "You can't always get what you want."

If Google refused to pony up 4.5+B and refused to share with Microsoft/Apple
etc. Then it do not get those patents. That's far from the conspiracy theory
its recent blog post is painting.

~~~
myko
You're talking about a different set of patents than the ones Microsoft is
tweeting about.

~~~
econgeeker
Google is talking about both, and google refused to even TALK to microsoft
about joining one of the groups bidding on patents that google is now
complaining about.

The claim that this is MSFT PR spin is based on the presumption that MSFT
offered google bad terms, but the email makes it clear they were proposing
talking about joining the group-- there were no terms yet.

Plus its pretty much impossible for there to have been bad terms. This is why
competitors like Apple and RIMM can join the same group. If google wasn't
going to get what they want out of the deal there would be no incentive to
contribute.

Joining a group and paying a fraction of the bid is always cheaper than
bidding against that same group and having to pay the whole bid.

The only reason you wouldn't want to join such a group is if you wanted to use
the patents offensively.

~~~
fpgeek
There absolutely _can_ be bad terms, from Google's point of view (and not from
the point of view of Apple and RIM). For example, restrictions on who or how
you can sub-license your rights to the patents to third parties...

------
ams6110
In two large organizations A and B, how likely is it that someone at B can
find an email from a person at A to a person at B that appears to contradict
some assertion by some other person at A?

------
g123g
These behind the scenes emails raise a question in my mind. On what other
issues these companies are covertly colluding with each other which we don't
know. One obvious thing could be some kind of silent agreement on not
competing with each other on employee salaries etc. to keep them in check.
There could be more like trying not to increase valuations of startups they
are trying to acquire.

~~~
econgeeker
Is it really covert? In the case of the Nortel bids, the bidders were getting
government approval before bidding, and it was made public after the fact who
was in the groups.

I'm not sure that removing anonymity from bidders is a good thing or not. I
mean, if you know who the other bidders are, that would affect your strategy,
removing some purity from the auction process, wouldn't it?

But, maybe you feel I'm sidestepping your real issue, so let me make another
point: In any situation where companies might collude like this, they're
effectively creating a cartel. Say, in the case of the employee salaries that
you mention.

The problem with a cartel is that there is always an incentive for a member of
the cartel to violate the agreement. For instance, if MSFT, Apple, Facebook
and Google agreed to cap software developer salaries, then Google (or one of
the others) has an incentive to secretly violate that agreement to get the
best employees, right?

Pretty soon the cartel falls apart, or the agreement has no effect. The
stronger the agreement, the more incentive there is to violate it.

Further, imagine if they were successful and kept salaries below a market
rate-- this would give a huge boost to any of their competitors who were
willing to pay market rates, right?

They'd only be shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, driving the best
employees to other companies.

This is why cartels don't really work, or at least aren't sustainable for very
long.

------
goatforce5
> Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting
> through litigation.

I think that 'instead of' should be a 'As well as'.

------
iamelgringo
Google is going to need to hire a lot more lawyers these days... anti-trust
inquiries against themselves, weak patent portfolio... Gonna be really
interesting to watch.

------
tomica
anyone remember when AAPL claimed "we just wish to protect our innovation" (i
think it was about the HTC suit).

well, how does buying novel/nortel patents protect your innovation? how does
joining with MSFT to keep patents away from GOOG protect your innovation?

------
pagejim
can someone throw light on what these patents hold?

------
Gaussian
Google: Bidding pi x 10^9 no longer looks so adorably wonky...

------
drivebyacct2
I asked about this on Twitter to deaf ears. Isn't Microsoft mixing up Novell
and Nortel? Even if Microsoft did offer to partner on the Novell patents, the
accusations are being levied more directly at the Nortel buy by Microsoft,
Apple, etc.

Maybe I'm missing the point, or it's not fair to think that Nortel vs Novell
makes a difference. I really have no idea. I'm just wondering aloud. I don't
really get how this is all perceived in a legal sense or in terms of how this
affects Google's statement today. I get it's relevancy, but does it make
Google's position less tenable? Maybe I'm just naive because they support the
position I was already in favor of.

edit: I guess my other post which is more speculative would be the response to
"they also mentioned Novell in the post".

~~~
kenjackson
Read Google's original blog posting by David Drummond again:

 _They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the
“CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the
“Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t
get them._

 _We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned
earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms_

They made it about the Novell AND Nortel patents. In some regards they need
both to show a pattern of collusion. Rather they have a situation where THEY
turned down Microsoft to go it alone. Makes their case a lot weaker.

~~~
rbanffy
Had Google joined the bidding, they would be unable to use the patents to
defend against Microsoft. Microsoft would win.

Since Google refused to bid along and the CPTN and Rockstar groups won, Google
isn't able to use those patents to defend against Microsoft. Microsoft won.

Had another group won the auctions, the result would be neutral to both Google
and Microsoft. Both would, probably, be bullied.

The only scenario where Google would win would be if they offered the winning
bid or joined a winning group with no ties to Microsoft. They would then be
able to use those patents against Microsoft.

And don't forget Apple's patent portfolio threatens Google and its partners
too.

~~~
kenjackson
_Had Google joined the bidding, they would be unable to use the patents to
defend against Microsoft. Microsoft would win._

Google played this tactically horribly. First, their first goal should have
been to get these patents off the table. For example, for the Novell patents,
MS wanted them so that Apple and Google couldn't sue them with it. But part of
the deal was that MS immediately sold those patents to Attachmate. They own
none of the Novell patents now (although they have a perpetual license to
their use). So clearly MS wasn't planning on being offensive with the patents.
It was purely a defensive play.

Second, by not joining in the bidding Google overplayed how much they are
worried about these patents and other patents held by the members of the
consortium. Things like that are what drives up prices. And it's like blood in
water. Companies can smell when they know you have a weakness.

Google should have just taken these patents off the table, and then continue
to fight their current battles.

Now they have their current battles to fight. AND they have 882 Novell patents
that they can be hit with. Then 6000 Nortel patents. Whoever is running
Google's IP planning I think needs to be replaced.

------
drivebyacct2
Again, re-reading, it seems like Google's major complaint was in relation to
the Nortel patents because of the ridiculous price that they sold for
(multiples of what their expected worth was). Even if Google missed out on
joining an effective patent troll consortium, is that really the way
innovation and industry should be encouraged?

It seems imminent that Apple will benefit from Android via Samsung, and
Microsoft is already from Android via HTC, Motorola. Is it possible that
Google did try to buy them to secure Android. If they had such a large set of
patents, wouldn't that have given them and their hardware partners significant
leverage against Apple and/or Microsoft? It seems like a defensive pattern.

Is it possible that Android's success will feed Google's competitors who've
joined together to ensure their ability to leach off of Android via patents?
Doesn't that make Google's interests fundamentally juxtaposed from
Apple/Microsoft's who will profit simply from patent imbalances?

~~~
Terretta
> _Google's major complaint was in relation to the Nortel patents because of
> the ridiculous price that they sold for (multiples of what their expected
> worth was)_

I found Google's position on this to be especially lame.

"These were worth only 1 billion, and they sold for nearly 5 times that!",
omitting that Google bid "nearly" 4 times that. (Where "nearly" is defined as
rounding up.) Why is four times "expected worth" okay, but 5 times isn't okay?
Because they lost.

------
napierzaza
Obvious lies. Google is the lone white knight who is alone in a forrest full
of trolls. Who wants to collect and sell our personal information...

------
barista
whatevar this ain't seeing the front page of HN.

------
afsina
I believe reaching to Google from MS was a planned move. And it worked.

~~~
jan_g
I have the same sentiment. My guess is that MS offered to team up before all
the bidding took place. Google refused, because they wanted to have it all.
After the bidding started, Microsoft teamed up with Apple and others. From
Microsoft point of view, they win the patents either way. So, bad planning
from Google, good planning from Microsoft.

~~~
protomyth
I would imagine from Microsoft's point of view Apple is "safe" since they have
known behavior and agreements with Microsoft already. I do wonder what
Microsoft thinks of HTC these days.

------
stewsnooze
Seriously. Front page news. A few people exchange emails. Then a deal isn't
done. pah.

~~~
kenjackson
Maybe you missed this 300+ point, 260+ comment thread:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2842683>

When there's a reply this pointed to a story that popular -- I'd expect it to
make front page.

------
ck2
By the end of this decade Microsoft is going to become the next Yahoo.

Their biggest asset all these years was being the default OS on the majority
of PCs sold in the USA and around most of the world.

As other free options catchup and become much, much more robust this decade
(and already most portable non-x86 devices ship without the need for ANYTHING
from Microsoft) they become irrelevant. Lawsuits and patent royalties will be
all they have left by 2020.

~~~
ck2
Do Microsoft employees read HN or are people going to explain their downvotes
to this logic?

~~~
kenjackson
Honestly, reading it the reason for the downvotes seem obvious. And unlike
most people who ask "why the downvotes?" in this case they seem justified.

Your original post was almost completely unrelated to the story at hand. It
would be more appropriate in the original Google blog post thread, but even
there not really appropriate. It's more fitting a story about the future of
Microsoft.

I think the downvotes were meant to say, "you're off topic". Post about how
MS's response wasn't credible or legit or whatever. But talking about their OS
position over the past 2 decades is really kind of left field.

~~~
ck2
Ah okay, thanks for explaining - I didn't get it because instead of the
details I was thinking about the overall picture of Microsoft's relevancy -
everyone seems interested in this "battle" but I feel the whole point is moot
because Microsoft is no longer the "world power" they once were - this strikes
me as "last grasps" of power.

(and this comes from someone who has been around before windows and www, and
used Microsoft products almost exclusively back then, including compilers)

------
FameofLight
Googles make a large hue and cry whenever its free enterprise are in danger.
Same happened with bing story. All bogus claims.

People who spend large amount of money in creating new technology want to have
something in return. Every product can't go by freemium model.

~~~
ch0wn
You don't understand software patents.

