or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Inside look at $4.5B Nortel patent auction reveals battle of wills between Apple, Google
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Inside look at $4.5B Nortel patent auction reveals battle of wills between Apple, Google - Page 6

post #201 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You're making even less sense here than normal. If Google is close to X their final figure then they WANT Rockstar to bury them, because that means Rockstar just overbid and payed far more for the asset than it's worth.

Whoa now brother! That statement is way off any reasonable mark. You are saying that Google is the only one who knows how much those patents are worth? Ridiculous!

The far more likely reason why their group stopped bidding was that it became too expensive FOR THEM. It has nothing to do with anyone else bidding there. Apple's $2 billion might be considered to be a bargain at Apple, and they might be celebrating because they got it so cheaply.

Quote:
Why would Google be scared of Apple massively out bidding them? Do you think they get scared by large sums of money? The only fear Google has near X is that Rockstar pulls out. Until you can understand that simple concept I can't help you, in fact I doubt anybody can.

Scared wouldn't be the proper term, concerned might be a better one. If Google was really concerned that they needed those patents, and Apple, MS and others had more money, then Google would feel as though they had to pull out, because if they didn't, and by the way, their partners had something to say about that too, they would be forced to overbid their top position. And the patents are of less value to them, because of their lack of large, direct income, such as Apple has. From the report, they already needed to ask to bid higher, so they already needed to compete against more money than they expected to need.

Quote:
Look imagine the absolute simplest possible auction of an Asset X. X is worth A to Apple and G to Google, and in our approximation lets pretend that both parties know both values - let's also assume for convenience that A > G.

Bidding proceeds quickly to G and then gets complex. In principle Google can push Apple all the way to A and it's still in Apple's interest to outbid, but at some point Apple may decide that it's better to let Google overpay, even though they would be leaving value on the table. So even in this scenario where there is perfect knowledge of value there is a sophisticated question as to how far Google bids. It depends on whether Google's loss is Apple's gain and in what proportion, and vice-versa. If you know that final relationship then in our unrealistic approximation then you know the correct value for Google to stop bidding.

Once you introduce real world uncertainties it rapidly gets very complicated.


Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.

Apple alone had the iOS product sales to enforce a much higher bid than Google alone.

So in several years, Apple could be selling close to $100 billion of iOS related products a year, while Google might be making $5 or $6 billion a year on Ads and licensing from Android.

To whom do you think the patents would hold more value? I hope you thought ; Apple.
post #202 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Whoa now brother! That statement is way off any reasonable mark. You are saying that Google is the only one who knows how much those patents are worth? Ridiculous!

You're right I misspoke -the statement should have read that means Rockstar just overbid and payed far more for the asset than was necessary.

Quote:
From the report, they already needed to ask to bid higher, so they already needed to compete against more money than they expected to need.

Erm, I think you're misreading what that meant, or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean. Google asked the auctioneer to be allowed to increase the increments, ie. if bidding had been going up in 200mils, they asked the auctioneer to switch it to 500mils. That doesn't imply that Google felt there was an unexpected amount of money needed - in fact it may have meant that they felt that the price would go far higher than the Auctioneer expected, or they may have been attempting to send a signal of determination, or bluffing, or double bluffing. etc.

Quote:
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.

And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?

Quote:
To whom do you think the patents would hold more value? I hope you thought ; Apple.

Exactly, which is precisely why Google could, should and probably did continue bidding long after they'd passed the value of the Patents to themselves.


The more certain Apple is to continue to bid the greater the motivation for Google to bid greater than it's own perceived value.


Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first? If Google was seeking to maximize value to itself and minimize value to Apple it didn't stop because it was reaching its own limit, it stopped because it felt it was nearing the point where Apple would let it win.
post #203 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I disagree. It makes no difference at all. What has really happened is that they lost the auction in an area in which they needed to win.

Wait - you also said in a different post that
Quote:
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.

I would contend that you were wrong on both counts, neither Apple nor Google needed to win at all costs, this wasn't like a mobile spectrum auction when losing means you essentially pack up and quit the business.

The patents have an estimated value to both Apple and Google, and that value is most likely different. But neither need them, or the price would have been much much higher.
post #204 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You're right I misspoke -the statement should have read that means Rockstar just overbid and payed far more for the asset than was necessary.

I think your whole theory that Google's strategy was to get others to overbid is nonsense and nothing more than a fantasy based on a fairy tale view of what Google is. They wanted and needed the patents. Intel also wanted the patents and it's extremely unlikely they would have participated in such a "game". Google's bids weren't clever, they were simply juvenile.
post #205 of 300
Where there any price specific guidelines attached to these patents? ex. if the bid goes higher than X amount of dollars then such and such conditions must be agreed to?
post #206 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think your whole theory that Google's strategy was to get others to overbid is nonsense and nothing more than a fantasy based on a fairy tale view of what Google is. They wanted and needed the patents. Intel also wanted the patents and it's extremely unlikely they would have participated in such a "game". Google's bids weren't clever, they were simply juvenile.

Don't bother trying... Cloudgazer views Google as the all seeing all knowing omniscient being who completely dazzled Apple and all the others with their otherworldly mathematical bids... stunning the rest of the pack with their brilliance so much that Apple, Microsoft and the other members of Rockstar could do nothing but blindly obey and overbid.

I bow to his knowledge... it is too outstanding for me to comprehend...

[ on edit - ... remembering, of course, that all bidding was done by packs of lawyers... ]
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #207 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I bow to his knowledge... it is too outstanding for me to comprehend...

Increasingly that doesn't look like irony
post #208 of 300
The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.

a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder

or

b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning

If it was b. then it's obvious that Rockstar Bidco. didn't overpay but instead made an aggressive bid at the end to show Google that there was lots of gas left in the tank and that Google should never have brought a knife to a gun fight... stupid bids and all.

More crap like this and Google will be perceived as Apple has always been perceived in the investment community... a company with a funny name run by a bunch of punks in a garage. Borrowing from Winston Churchill (concerning Apple)... "some punk... some garage"...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #209 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.

a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder

or

b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning

...

b. a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
post #210 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Increasingly that doesn't look like irony

No, it looks like sarcasm.
post #211 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Don't bother trying... Cloudgazer views Google as the all seeing all knowing omniscient being who completely dazzled Apple and all the others with their otherworldly mathematical bids... stunning the rest of the pack with their brilliance so much that Apple, Microsoft and the other members of Rockstar could do nothing but blindly obey and overbid.

On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.

Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)
post #212 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

You're right I misspoke -the statement should have read that means Rockstar just overbid and payed far more for the asset than was necessary.

That would still be wrong. You're constantly making the assumption that Google and its group are smarter, and know more than the competition. It's just as likely to be the opposite.

Quote:
Erm, I think you're misreading what that meant, or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean. Google asked the auctioneer to be allowed to increase the increments, ie. if bidding had been going up in 200mils, they asked the auctioneer to switch it to 500mils. That doesn't imply that Google felt there was an unexpected amount of money needed - in fact it may have meant that they felt that the price would go far higher than the Auctioneer expected, or they may have been attempting to send a signal of determination, or bluffing, or double bluffing. etc.

That's not clear. I don't know why they would need to ask the auctioneer, unless the quads tee they gave in the beginning was too small, and they were asking to raise it. If so, and it seems likely, then it's what I said. I doubt the bidding was moving to 500 mil per bid. We're reading that it was $100 mil per bid, which seems reasonable. Besides, if they were asking that, then they couldn't have bid those odd amounts.

Quote:
And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?

Surely no, that's not clear. They aren't playing tiddlywinks here. They're bidding billions of dollars. What would have happened if Google bid much more than they originally wanted (which looks to be the case anyway), and won? You don't bluff at these things. I've been to enough auctions in addition to buying hundreds of things on eBay to know that. It's also against the rules. Besides, their competitors had much more money than they did, it wouldn't have mattered if Apple did pay a couple of hundred of million more.

Quote:
Exactly, which is precisely why Google could, should and probably did continue bidding long after they'd passed the value of the Patents to themselves.


The more certain Apple is to continue to bid the greater the motivation for Google to bid greater than it's own perceived value.


Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first? If Google was seeking to maximize value to itself and minimize value to Apple it didn't stop because it was reaching its own limit, it stopped because it felt it was nearing the point where Apple would let it win.

You're playing a real guessing game here.
post #213 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Wait - you also said in a different post that

I would contend that you were wrong on both counts, neither Apple nor Google needed to win at all costs, this wasn't like a mobile spectrum auction when losing means you essentially pack up and quit the business.

The patents have an estimated value to both Apple and Google, and that value is most likely different. But neither need them, or the price would have been much much higher.

I don't see how those two statements contradict each other. Actually, they're complementary.

No one is talking about "at all costs". And of course they all needed them to a certain extent, or there would have been much lower bidding. You're ignoring the reality here. The bids for this ended up being three times the estimates, as has been stated by those setting this up, and others. It's also been stated by those in the patent industry that this was the most expensive patent auction ever.

Obviously, this was considered to be very important to all of these companies.

But as I've continuously stated, which you seem to be ignoring, Apple will be making vastly more on the products which will rely on these than Google will ever have the hope to be making, so they are worth far more to Apple, though it is very possible that Apple got them for less than Google itself bid.

That would be ironic!
post #214 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Increasingly that doesn't look like irony

It wasn't irony, it was sarcasm.
post #215 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.

a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder

or

b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning

If it was b. then it's obvious that Rockstar Bidco. didn't overpay but instead made an aggressive bid at the end to show Google that there was lots of gas left in the tank and that Google should never have brought a knife to a gun fight... stupid bids and all.

More crap like this and Google will be perceived as Apple has always been perceived in the investment community... a company with a funny name run by a bunch of punks in a garage. Borrowing from Winston Churchill (concerning Apple)... "some punk... some garage"...

That's really closer to what happens at auctions. I've done it myself when bidding on rare books. You get to a point where you want to close the bidding down. So if that was what happened, it would make sense.

An auction has minimum bids, which can be upped at any time by those bidding, but never brought down, unless the auctioneer, and there's always someone in charge, which would be the lawyers in whose offices the bidding was taking place, decides that the property wasn't getting enough bids, and so lowers the value of the bids. But that doesn't seem to have happened here.

Once the final grouping was decided, enough money was likely available to let them increase that last bid. Who knows what would have happened if Google's group responded. But they were out of gas.
post #216 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.

Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)

Completely different situation with no parallels to this whatsoever.
post #217 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jexus View Post

On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.

Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)

I thought that this was going to be similar to that, but Google made that one bid, and then stopped. The price would have gone up without Google's bid back then, and this time they really wanted those patents.

I really think it would have been better for them to have attempted to join another group instead of acting in opposition. I also don't understand why Intel went with them when the other group was also courting them. They should have seen the likely outcome with both Apple and MS on the same side, having won't the bidding for Novells' patents earlier.
post #218 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's really closer to what happens at auctions. I've done it myself when bidding on rare books. You get to a point where you want to close the bidding down. So if that was what happened, it would make sense.

There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.

That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.

Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
post #219 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.

That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.

Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.

... and again you are not reading the thread... please explain why Rockstar Bidco was willing to make a $500 million dollar jump if all they had to do was bid another $100 million.

It sounds to me as if you have gone from one theory onto another theory... there seems to be parallels between your arguments and Google's game play at the auction... you don't know what the hell you are doing as you meander all over the place with silly ass statements (bids) while at the same time the other guys are watching your silly ass squirm while they lay on the winning arguments (bids)...
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #220 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

Stupid money means more money has to be paid by stupid people.
That of course being us the public.

It is bad news that patents are becoming 'family silver' to be sold off to the highest bidder.

Exactly. This is not good news for the end customer.
post #221 of 300
deleted
post #222 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainless View Post

Exactly. This is not good news for the end customer.

Not saying you're wrong but the only place I pay more is with my heating bills and my auto gas bills. Of course it could be said that most things could be even cheaper if companies weren't paying so much for patent rights etc... but of that I'm not sure.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #223 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

... and again you are not reading the thread... please explain why Rockstar Bidco was willing to make a $500 million dollar jump if all they had to do was bid another $100 million.

Because by that stage the bid increments had been raised. Perhaps they were linked to the size of the current bid, or perhaps linked to Google's request. Clearly the minimum bid increment wasn't 500mil at the start.

I'll stop arguing with you at this point, it's clearly really annoying you and I generally think you're sane so I'll just assume that this is one of those very counter-intuitive things.

Your reaction reminds me of the response every time I try to explain the Monty Hall Problem to a non mathematician.
post #224 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Because by that stage the bid increments had been raised. Perhaps they were linked to the size of the current bid, or perhaps linked to Google's request. Clearly the minimum bid increment wasn't 500mil at the start.

I'll stop arguing with you at this point, it's clearly really annoying you and I generally think you're sane so I'll just assume that this is one of those very counter-intuitive things.

Your reaction reminds me of the response every time I try to explain the Monty Hall Problem to a non mathematician.

Now I know you aren't on this planet...

Let me repeat... The bid was in $100 million increments up until Google's final bid of $4 billion. If at that point Google asked for bid increments of $500 million and then did not submit another bid above Rockstar Bidco.'s $4.5 billion bid... don't you think that would have been investigated... we're dealing with Apple and Microsoft here... the bullshit those two companies have been through in the last 25 years makes Google look like it's still in pre-school. Are you saying that Google has smarter lawyers than Apple and MS... and that Apple and MS wouldn't have contested any raised bid limits.

I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.

You're right... you should stop here. You're losing touch with reality.

[... and I don't seem to be the only one who thinks your theories are bunk.]
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #225 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Now I know you aren't on this planet...

Let me repeat... The bid was in $100 million increments up until Google's final bid of $4 billion. If at that point Google asked for bid increments of $500 million and then did not submit another bid above Rockstar Bidco.'s $4.5 billion bid... don't you think that would have been investigated... we're dealing with Apple and Microsoft here... the bullshit those two companies have been through in the last 25 years makes Google look like it's still in pre-school. Are you saying that Google has smarter lawyers than Apple and MS... and that Apple and MS wouldn't have contested any raised bid limits.

I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.

You're right... you should stop here. You're losing touch with reality.

[... and I don't seem to be the only one who thinks your theories are bunk.]

within 5 to 7 yrs apple patents bought from Nortel are free.

Apple got 2bn to start and another 600 million in pre royalty payments . and royalty payment going forward should zero out all Apple expences here.

So apple did tie up a couple of billion cash but in the end they WILL own all these goodies for free .


google sadly to say is clueless in so many ways



9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #226 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

within 5 to 7 yrs apple patents bought from Nortel are free.

Apple got 2bn to start and another 600 million in pre royalty payments . and royalty payment going forward should zero out all Apple expences here.

So apple did tie up a couple of billion cash but in the end they WILL own all these goodies for free .

google sadly to say is clueless in so many ways

9

If Google had used their silly ass bids and then won in the end then I would say that they should strut like a rooster and crow to the world.

As it is it looks like Google may have come off just looking silly. (... and I'm wondering if this will do damage to Google's reputation in the long run.)

I think it's great that Microsoft put their weight behind Rockstar Bidco's bid even though they already have rights to most of Nortel's LTE patent trove. I guess they just wanted to ensure that Google was left out int the cold.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #227 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.

That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.

Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.

Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.

Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
post #228 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.

Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.

Actually, I think they should have let the 4 guys from Storage Wars represent each group and have the auction down at one of the storage lockers.
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #229 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.

Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.

Does your company have a single competitor in its market and exist in an essentially zero sum context? ie. are you motivated to help them fail at least in this market? I'm guessing not, since that's really quite uncommon.
post #230 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.

No, I'm just accepting that my powers as an educator are insufficient to this task.
post #231 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

No, I'm just accepting that my powers as an educator are insufficient to this task.

What you're trying to "teach" is roughly equivalent to teaching creationism -- i.e., a "just so" story that simply isn't supported by any facts and ignores those that contradict it.
post #232 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post


Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first?

Sorry CG. You have an interesting perspective on every situation, which is cool. But you're off on this one. This simply is nothing like the Monty Hall problem.
post #233 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Sorry CG. You have an interesting perspective on every situation, which is cool. But you're off on this one. This simply is nothing like the Monty Hall problem.

Not directly no, the Monty Hall problem plays directly on people's innate understanding of probability which turns out to be terrifyingly wrong. I'm coming to the conclusion that people have a similar blindness about this feeling of who has 'won' or 'lost' in complex situations.

In this case I think people have a deep connection between winning the Patents and winning the greater game, rather like the way that many people automatically assume that Apple lost the game in their legal fight with Nokia because it ended with them paying money.
post #234 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

... In this case I think people have a deep connection between winning the Patents and winning the greater game, ...

in this case, I think you have some delusion that Google is so clever that there must have been some greater game they were playing. There wasn't. They simply lost the only game that was being played.
post #235 of 300
deleted
post #236 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Nah I think Google was just trying to be smartasses, they probably think they're still hip, irreverent, saving the world, doing things for "love" and goodness, and who knows what other delusions.

Do you snipe on eBay? Last time I was active was a few years ago and unless you had some specific price points in mind sniping seemed to be what most people do. Have they also clamped down on some auto-snipe type of software?

As for Nortel, they are in deep poo. At least "14 billion". It's quite confusing actually, from the sound of things: https://www.fis.dowjones.com/WebBlog...jblog&s=djfdbr

But I do think bankruptcy is one of the tools of capitalism that do work, in allowing assets to be distributed, and letting unviable businesses die. Of course, all this "too big to fail" nonsense (ie. bailout sprees) around the world is screwing this basic principle up. In fact, long before the "credit crunch", more than once before outright bankruptcy, the Canadian government was accused of trying to "bailout" Nortel.



Arc reactor. I went go-karting today, and I was just amazed that you are sitting right next to a fairly small "propulsion device" in which you just pour some "magical fluid" into it from time to time, and you get to cruise around at some speed. And it doesn't explode on any regular basis, which is surprising because that's how it works, little explosions. Thoroughly fascinating. Yes, just a simple tiny combustion engine giving you that raw power. I wonder if 100 years from now we'll all have "arc-reactor" kind of things powering everything. Along with solar, which should finally be able to give all the free long-term energy we need. But people will probably still be stupidly reproducing in unsustainable numbers, defeating the point of all this improvement in energy technology. But I, obviously, digress...

Yeah well the next time you're enjoying that Go-Kart ride, just remember the woman who got scalped in my town a little while ago. She was riding along and her hair got caught in the engine, which proceeded to rip out the scalp that held it in place. This happened years ago, and every time I re-think the events it makes me literally cringe.

Here's a link to the story with a bonus picture of the woman after having her scalp put back on:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2835487
post #237 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by utahnguy View Post

Yeah well the next time you're enjoying that Go-Kart ride, just remember the woman who got scalped in my town a little while ago. She was riding along and her hair got caught in the engine, which proceeded to rip out the scalp that held it in place.

For some reason that reminds me of the Incredibles. No Capes!
post #238 of 300
The argument that Goog might have gaming Aapl to bid more than necessary is intriguing, plaausible and insightful; however, if this was truly their strategy, it was flawed. First, they didn't know Apple's limit and could have ended up gaming themselves. Sure, this could've been a high stake game of chicken, but the ensuing argument would make it unlikely. Even if Apple were to pay the entire $4.5B, it would've done effectively zero long term damage to them. Therefore, the game was all for naught, which I'm sure didn't not escape the sharp minds at the Googleplex. In the mind, I think they were simply defeated by the Feigenbaum misunderstanding.
post #239 of 300
As for Monty Hall, again an interesting but mixed metaphor. The Monty Hall problem trips up many because they miscount the number of possible eventualities. Here, everyone is simply guessing what machinations were at play. Perhaps none at all. In this guessing game, there's no way of counting all possible outcomes to maximize our odds of being vcorrect.
post #240 of 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Therefore, the game was all for naught, which I'm sure didn't not escape the sharp minds at the Googleplex. In the mind, I think they were simply defeated by the Feigenbaum misunderstanding.

Google was defeated by a fig tree??!! What the hell!
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Inside look at $4.5B Nortel patent auction reveals battle of wills between Apple, Google