
Antitrust officials probing sale of patents to Google’s rivals - joelhaus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/antitrust-officials-probing-sale-of-patents-to-googles-rivals/2011/07/08/gIQANSlZ4H_story.html
======
flocial
I'm not a Google supporter on this one but any situation where Apple is happy
to join forces with Microsoft is a big red flag to me. We need a presence like
Android for the mobile. It may not be truly open or free from liscensing fees
but it's the only thing keeping the mobile landscape honest.

------
ajitk
In a way, I am happy that Google was outbid in its bid for Nortel patents.
This highlights how broken this system really is. It is being abused by big
corporations to maintain their hegemony.

It is allegedly a protection racket: [http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-
google-and-android-mu...](http://paidcontent.org/article/419-why-google-and-
android-must-deal-with-the-mobile-protection-racket/)

~~~
tzs
> In a way, I am happy that Google was outbid in its bid for Nortel patents.
> This highlights how broken this system really is. It is being abused by big
> corporations to maintain their hegemony.

That makes no sense, unless you think Google is not a big corporation.

~~~
ajitk
I did not say Google is not a big corporation. The emphasis is on patent
system being used for by big corporations (against big or small entities) for
a purpose that is not "good".

------
tzs
Nice math fail:

    
    
       “Why is the portfolio worth five times more
       to this group collectively than it is to Google?”
       said Robert Skitol, an antitrust lawyer at the
       Drinker Biddle firm.
    

The winners paid 5 times Google's _opening_ bid. Generally, one's opening bid
is far lower than what the item is worth to one. The proper comparison is with
Google's _final_ bid, not the opening bid.

edit: fix grammar error.

~~~
mbreese
Except, wasn't Google's final bid also in concert with Intel? And how many
bids were there from the Apple, RIM, etc consortium? The math in the article
isn't meant to be definitive, but rather to illustrate that what Google
originally valued at $900M was finally sold for $4.5B. This is a big
difference. It shows that not letting Google get the patents was worth more to
the group than the actual patents themselves. That should raise red flags.

~~~
msbarnett
Except acting as thought Google thought the patents were worth $900M because
that was their initial bid is daft -- you never lead with the maximum you're
willing to pay, you lowball and try to stay as far away from your maximum as
possible, since that is what you _actually_ think it is worth, such that
paying it would be breaking even, and paying more than it would be taking a
loss.

------
fuzionmonkey
I saw this graphic in a WSJ piece a while ago. Obviously many patents are
probably unrelated to mobile, but still. Pretty shocking:

[http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-
BN208A_norte_G_...](http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-
BN208A_norte_G_20110701181505.jpg)

That is some serious ganging-up on Google.

Full-
article:[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230458400457641...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304584004576418962301518284.html)

------
kubrickslair
There have been a couple of stories where the formation of consortiums
(Rockstar and Rangers) was discussed. This article smells a bit like lazy
journalism:

>Then an unknown group calling itself Rockstar Bidco stepped forward with a
whopping $4.5 billion offer — turning the Nortel sale into possibly the
biggest intellectual-property auction of all time. The group, it turned out,
was a coalition of Google’s biggest rivals in mobile phones.

~~~
fleitz
Yup, the whole thing looks like industry standard PR. Poor little Google one
would hardly know they're a giant company who is using their search monopoly
to undercut smaller competitors in the smart phone market.

~~~
murz
> they're a giant company who is using their search monopoly to undercut
> smaller competitors in the smart phone market.

How exactly is Google using their search monopoly to undercut smaller (or
larger for that matter) competitors in the smart phone market?

~~~
fleitz
It's similar to MSFT vs. Borland, MSFT could undercut the compilers because
they sold the OS. Compilers and developer tools are a complement to their core
business. Smartphones are a complement to Google's search/adsense business.

To Google making sure that people have cheap smartphones increases their
search revenue. It also ensures there will be a smart phone platform with
Google defaults. On an Apple or RIM device MSFT might have enough dough or
other leverage to change a search default. And on WinPhone7 you can be pretty
sure the search default will be Bing.

~~~
va_coder
It's not the same thing. MSFT would impede innovation with sneaky tactics
(e.g. hide or change apis) in order to stay in the lead. I have yet to see
Google do something like that. Google is winning by innovating.

------
shareme
Somewhat miss-labeled title..

1\. No antitrust officials are probing the sale as of yet..one just got a
letter of protest..

2\. No discussion of the details of split of the 'rewards'...other better
articles have detailed what the split might be as far as what patents go to
which group in the consortium ..

3\. Bankruptcy court was in Canada which means any anti-trust action is by the
EU and yet no details..and yet better other articles have detailed that the EU
is in fact reviewing the sale.

So what does this article offer? Lazy

