Meh, I think Apple should have kept their mouth shut, like they usually do.
$2.5 billion is alot to pay for NORTEL patents, too. It's a fair price and well worth it, mind you, but still alot, and one of their bigger purchases.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
Google started out at 900 million but they ended up bidding significantly more: billions more!
Larry Page isn't stupid - he's a Stanford Ph.D. dropout after all (as is Sergey Brin, and, er, Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang.)
No, he is not stupid. None of them are. But to get a PhD at a respected university takes time and patience as well as aptitude and intellect.
It's interesting that so many of these guys drop out of college and then end up being huge successes in business. Steve Jobs included. What it suggests to me is that there are two kinds of smart, business smart and academic smart. PhDs envy the money made by corporate bigwigs, and CEOs are jealous of the respect that PhDs get for their knowledge and intellect. If you don't mind being poor, that's the kind of respect money can't buy.
I know someone who is a big success in business, and because of that he is convinced that he is always the smartest guy in the room. On any topic. In any room. His opinions on many things outside of how to make money are borderline looney. But because he is rich, he is convinced he is right. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich, right?
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
no, Apple is the main proprietor of the deal. The others would get cross-licensing deals from Apple. In essence, only Apple can sue another company if the patents they bought from Nortel were being infringed. Not sure if its just Apple though, could be Apple and MSFT. Too lazy to research at this point.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
Google tapped out at $4 billion dollars. Although no one but those involved know how the payments were divvied out, it has been reported that Apple paid the lion's share (around $2.5 billion) for outright ownership of several of the patents.
Actually Google is more of an Advertising company in my opinion. They want as many ways as they can to keep their greasy fingers in our lives. To Google we are nothing more than food. They offer "free services" (often using IP that they don't own) as a way of keeping a good supply of food for their real customers, the advertisers.
Wait. Are you talking about AI? We are just food to them too. They give us "free" content (using IP that they don't own) as away of keeping a good supply of food for their real customer, Google.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?
Lets consider past patent deals.
Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000
450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent
Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000
12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent
Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000
4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000
Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.
Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.
Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES
I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
Actually, considering that you are fairly uninformed, I'll help you out a little bit here...
Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.
... but... where you fail miserably is by applying the number of patents bought as if all patents are equal (as has already been mentioned). The 7k patents pending are more than likely the real meat with a few more sprinkled in from the other 24 or so k. Regardless... it's not the number of patents...it's the quality of the patents. If in the end game Google can only cause a stalemate in the patent war then they will definitely have paid a lot more at 9.3 than Apple did at 2.5... plus for the extra 6.8 billion Apple can probably pick up a few more patents along the way... and Apple hasn't been downgraded in the process.
By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.
Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:
1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.
2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)
The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.
Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
Google's first foray into the courtroom failed miserably.
Actually, considering that you are fairly uninformed, I'll help you out a little bit here...
Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.
... but... where you fail miserably is by applying the number of patents bought as if all patents are equal (as has already been mentioned). The 7k patents pending are more than likely the real meat with a few more sprinkled in from the other 24 or so k. Regardless... it's not the number of patents...it's the quality of the patents. If in the end game Google can only cause a stalemate in the patent war then they will definitely have paid a lot more at 9.3 than Apple did at 2.5... plus for the extra 6.8 billion Apple can probably pick up a few more patents along the way... and Apple hasn't been downgraded in the process.
By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
so you're saying they paid even less than 12.5 billion? ok. btw Motorola had over $4 billion in net cash as of end of July 2011, so by your calculation it would be even less.
How do you know that the 7k patents pending are the 'real meat.' If you can provide a source on this that'd be great. Not trying to put you on the spot. Willing to gather more data.
Quality of the patents sure matter, and Google scored a treasure trove by getting them from Motorola, who have been in mobile phone industry since, yeah, Day 1. I'm pretty sure if Google had to pick Nortel or Motorola patents only, they would pick Motorola's.
of course apple shook the mobile industry in January of 2007.
This acquisition shook the mobile industry as well. A lot of changes are going to be made. If you deny this I don't know what to say other than the fact that you're trying really hard to minimize the impact this will have on the entire industry.
By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
This seems to be a common theme here at AI. At a macro scale, Google doesn't care about Apple much. Google cares about Microsoft, which threatens its core business. Android is about preventing MS from being successful in the space. To a certain extent, Apple should thank Google, as MS is a much more dangerous long-term threat. In particular, MS is immune to the sort of patent attack that Apple has been using to try and squash Android hardware.
This seems to be a common theme here at AI. At a macro scale, Google doesn't care about Apple much. Google cares about Microsoft, which threatens its core business. Android is about preventing MS from being successful in the space. To a certain extent, Apple should thank Google, as MS is a much more dangerous long-term threat. In particular, MS is immune to the sort of patent attack that Apple has been using to try and squash Android hardware.
ok. btw Motorola had over $4 billion in net cash as of end of July 2011, so by your calculation it would be even less.
I think MMI actually had $3.2 billion and MSI had $4 billion... the headline is very confusing because it melds both companies together. Sloppy on their part.
You assume all patents are equally worthwhile and valuable. Many of Motorola's patents are a part of a standard's body. Meaning they have to be licensed under FRAND terms. Those aren't as valuable as a patent that isn't part of a standard's body.
This deal is bad because Google 1) is undermining Android partners who don't want to compete with Google (and Google has no qualms with competing with the partners, 2) Motorola's business is losing money so Motorola will not eventually pay for itself, and 3) the purchase doesn't help Google with its current legal problems.
Android partners would be smart to stick with Android for the sort term, but then all dump Android together for either Microsoft or HP's Web OS (assuming HP can be talked into that).
Quote:
Originally Posted by droideggs
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?
Lets consider past patent deals.
Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000
450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent
Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000
12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent
Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000
4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000
Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.
Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.
Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES
I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
Apple's business model is to sell hardware by making that hardware unique and highly consumer friendly. By licensing its technology to knock off providers, it undermines the value of its products. Apple has never been afraid to take on the big boys like Microsoft in Court. Yet, historically Apple really isn't sue happy outside of Android.
I honestly think Apple could care less about Microsoft because it thinks it can compete fairly with it, and Microsoft is not blatantly knocking Apple off. Apple has a real chip on its shoulders for Android though. Probably because Apple feels like Google's CEO while sitting on Apple's board played underhandedly. Further, Google made little effort to come up with its own OS. It took the Java code, and used Apple GUI as a guide to patch on Java.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
It's more likely that they're not complaining because they either have cross-licensing agreements in place, or know that both of those companies have patent portfolios that make suing them corporate suicide (perhaps murder-suicide). Apple is perfectly happy tsue any infringers that can't defend themselves adequately, as opposed to most of the industry that licenses to anyone for the right price.
Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.
Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
You assume all patents are equally worthwhile and valuable. Many of Motorola's patents are a part of a standard's body. Meaning they have to be licensed under FRAND terms. Those aren't as valuable as a patent that isn't part of a standard's body.
Not to mention that many of the Motorola patents are close to expiration.
Comments
Meh, I think Apple should have kept their mouth shut, like they usually do.
$2.5 billion is alot to pay for NORTEL patents, too. It's a fair price and well worth it, mind you, but still alot, and one of their bigger purchases.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
Google started out at 900 million but they ended up bidding significantly more: billions more!
Larry Page isn't stupid - he's a Stanford Ph.D. dropout after all (as is Sergey Brin, and, er, Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang.)
No, he is not stupid. None of them are. But to get a PhD at a respected university takes time and patience as well as aptitude and intellect.
It's interesting that so many of these guys drop out of college and then end up being huge successes in business. Steve Jobs included. What it suggests to me is that there are two kinds of smart, business smart and academic smart. PhDs envy the money made by corporate bigwigs, and CEOs are jealous of the respect that PhDs get for their knowledge and intellect. If you don't mind being poor, that's the kind of respect money can't buy.
I know someone who is a big success in business, and because of that he is convinced that he is always the smartest guy in the room. On any topic. In any room. His opinions on many things outside of how to make money are borderline looney. But because he is rich, he is convinced he is right. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich, right?
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
no, Apple is the main proprietor of the deal. The others would get cross-licensing deals from Apple. In essence, only Apple can sue another company if the patents they bought from Nortel were being infringed. Not sure if its just Apple though, could be Apple and MSFT. Too lazy to research at this point.
The NORTEL bid was actually $4.5 billion and pooled together by Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson and EMC. It's not clear though if they are paying out equal payments of $750 million each. They beat out Google's sole bid of $900 million.
Google tapped out at $4 billion dollars. Although no one but those involved know how the payments were divvied out, it has been reported that Apple paid the lion's share (around $2.5 billion) for outright ownership of several of the patents.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
And your point being...?
But because he is rich, he is convinced he is right. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich, right?
You are right... that's rich, Rob...
I am not rich... but I am Rich, but only sometimes right...
Isn't that right, Rob?
...And don't call me Shirley
Sorry, not a 13 year-old girl.
You're really Chris Hansen, from Dateline NBC.
Actually Google is more of an Advertising company in my opinion. They want as many ways as they can to keep their greasy fingers in our lives. To Google we are nothing more than food. They offer "free services" (often using IP that they don't own) as a way of keeping a good supply of food for their real customers, the advertisers.
Wait. Are you talking about AI? We are just food to them too. They give us "free" content (using IP that they don't own) as away of keeping a good supply of food for their real customer, Google.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?
Lets consider past patent deals.
Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000
450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent
Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000
12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent
Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000
4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000
Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.
Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.
Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES
I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
Actually, considering that you are fairly uninformed, I'll help you out a little bit here...
Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.
... but... where you fail miserably is by applying the number of patents bought as if all patents are equal (as has already been mentioned). The 7k patents pending are more than likely the real meat with a few more sprinkled in from the other 24 or so k. Regardless... it's not the number of patents...it's the quality of the patents. If in the end game Google can only cause a stalemate in the patent war then they will definitely have paid a lot more at 9.3 than Apple did at 2.5... plus for the extra 6.8 billion Apple can probably pick up a few more patents along the way... and Apple hasn't been downgraded in the process.
By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
but that companies must invent their own technology rather than take the ideas of others.
Says the CFO of the company:
- that didn't invent the mouse nor the GUI; it was Xerox' idea
- that didn't invent the iPod nor iTunes
- that didn't invent the PDA; that was Psion
- that didn't invent touch nor multitouch; that was Fingerworks
- that didn't invent OS X; Unixe was Bell Labs' idea
- that didn't invent Coverflow
- that didn't invent TabletPCs; that was MS
- ...
- that didn't invent the rectangular format
all these idea's taken from others
Reading Apple 2.0's bit on the long view by Horace Dediu @ ASYMCO, there seemed to be the thought that the deal doesn't stack up either as a patent buy, a manufacturing buy, or a combination of both.
Consider me an ignoramus, but what about the angle that Apple has been suing Manufacturers of Android devices but not Google directly. 2 things might now be said:
1) Google just bought their entry ticket into a courtroom by becoming a manufacturer, thus contributing their resources to the bigger fight.
2) Google is now on the hook for their manufacturer's violation of patents. (if any)
The first is positive, because it get's Google into the fight.
The second is negative, because it puts Google at risk.
Thoughts? I'm retarded, aren't I?
Google's first foray into the courtroom failed miserably.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/judge-...-dispute/55299
Actually, considering that you are fairly uninformed, I'll help you out a little bit here...
Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.
... but... where you fail miserably is by applying the number of patents bought as if all patents are equal (as has already been mentioned). The 7k patents pending are more than likely the real meat with a few more sprinkled in from the other 24 or so k. Regardless... it's not the number of patents...it's the quality of the patents. If in the end game Google can only cause a stalemate in the patent war then they will definitely have paid a lot more at 9.3 than Apple did at 2.5... plus for the extra 6.8 billion Apple can probably pick up a few more patents along the way... and Apple hasn't been downgraded in the process.
By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
so you're saying they paid even less than 12.5 billion? ok. btw Motorola had over $4 billion in net cash as of end of July 2011, so by your calculation it would be even less.
How do you know that the 7k patents pending are the 'real meat.' If you can provide a source on this that'd be great. Not trying to put you on the spot. Willing to gather more data.
Quality of the patents sure matter, and Google scored a treasure trove by getting them from Motorola, who have been in mobile phone industry since, yeah, Day 1. I'm pretty sure if Google had to pick Nortel or Motorola patents only, they would pick Motorola's.
of course apple shook the mobile industry in January of 2007.
This acquisition shook the mobile industry as well. A lot of changes are going to be made. If you deny this I don't know what to say other than the fact that you're trying really hard to minimize the impact this will have on the entire industry.
By the way... this deal didn't shake the tech industry to the core... the iPhone and the iPad did that... Google is just trying desperately to catch up.
This seems to be a common theme here at AI. At a macro scale, Google doesn't care about Apple much. Google cares about Microsoft, which threatens its core business. Android is about preventing MS from being successful in the space. To a certain extent, Apple should thank Google, as MS is a much more dangerous long-term threat. In particular, MS is immune to the sort of patent attack that Apple has been using to try and squash Android hardware.
This seems to be a common theme here at AI. At a macro scale, Google doesn't care about Apple much. Google cares about Microsoft, which threatens its core business. Android is about preventing MS from being successful in the space. To a certain extent, Apple should thank Google, as MS is a much more dangerous long-term threat. In particular, MS is immune to the sort of patent attack that Apple has been using to try and squash Android hardware.
Finally a post that makes sense
ok. btw Motorola had over $4 billion in net cash as of end of July 2011, so by your calculation it would be even less.
I think MMI actually had $3.2 billion and MSI had $4 billion... the headline is very confusing because it melds both companies together. Sloppy on their part.
... overtakes, takeover, same diff.
Wow, seriously?
overtake
1.
a. To catch up with; draw even or level with.
b. To pass after catching up with.
2. To come upon unexpectedly; take by surprise: geopolitical strategists who were overtaken by events in southeast Asia.
take over
1. To assume control, management, or responsibility.
2. To assume the control or management of or the responsibility for: She took over the job after he left.
3. To become dominant: Our defense took over in the second half of the game.
you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics. ...
When you don't understand the semantics, you can't even communicate your argument, so you've lost before you even start.
This deal is bad because Google 1) is undermining Android partners who don't want to compete with Google (and Google has no qualms with competing with the partners, 2) Motorola's business is losing money so Motorola will not eventually pay for itself, and 3) the purchase doesn't help Google with its current legal problems.
Android partners would be smart to stick with Android for the sort term, but then all dump Android together for either Microsoft or HP's Web OS (assuming HP can be talked into that).
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?
Lets consider past patent deals.
Novell patents
# of patents: 882
cost of patents: $450,000,000
450,000,000 ÷ 882 = $510,204.08 per patent
Motorola patents
# of patents: 24,500 (17k patents, 7k pending)
cost of patents: $12,500,000,000
12,500,000,000 ÷ 24,500 = $510,204.08 per patent
Nortel patents
# of patents: 6,000
cost of patents: $4,500,000,000
4,500,000,000 ÷ 6,000 = $750,000
Also bear in mind that Google gets sole ownership of Motorola patents, whereas the Nortel deal was done through a consortium of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and others.
Add to that Google now just gained access to millions of peoples' homes by acquiring Motorola's existing Set Top Box business.
Did this shake the tech industry to the core? HECK YES
I'll bet you money that Apple will be acquiring a company for its patents or even more soon.
I honestly think Apple could care less about Microsoft because it thinks it can compete fairly with it, and Microsoft is not blatantly knocking Apple off. Apple has a real chip on its shoulders for Android though. Probably because Apple feels like Google's CEO while sitting on Apple's board played underhandedly. Further, Google made little effort to come up with its own OS. It took the Java code, and used Apple GUI as a guide to patch on Java.
It's more likely that they're not complaining because they either have cross-licensing agreements in place, or know that both of those companies have patent portfolios that make suing them corporate suicide (perhaps murder-suicide). Apple is perfectly happy tsue any infringers that can't defend themselves adequately, as opposed to most of the industry that licenses to anyone for the right price.
Google didn't pay $12.5 billion... they actually paid $9.3 billion once you subtract Motorola's net cash = $3.2 billion.
Can you point to a section in the purchase agreement that says that Google gets to keep the cash? Oh, wait. You haven't seen the purchase agreement.
Typically, in an asset purchase acquisition like this, the selling company keeps the cash. Only in a stock purchase would the purchasing company normally get the cash.
You assume all patents are equally worthwhile and valuable. Many of Motorola's patents are a part of a standard's body. Meaning they have to be licensed under FRAND terms. Those aren't as valuable as a patent that isn't part of a standard's body.
Not to mention that many of the Motorola patents are close to expiration.