Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Go find where I said that and quote it, I never once said that Apple has definitely overpaid. You are assuming I'm assuming this.
I'll give some of it, but reading through almost 300 posts to find every quote is a bit much to ask.
"Solipsism is absolutely right when he said that part of the point for Google is to make competitors overpay."
"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."
"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."
"And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?"
"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. "
"Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose."
I'll stop here. We can see the trend in your thinking, even if you can not. By putting the word"definitively" into the sentence, you think you can avoid all that you've said, but you can't.
Well that's clearly not true. We know that Google has the cash to pay more than 4billion, if the Patents were worth more than 5billion to Google then they would have had an expected profit by bidding higher. Google is a huge cash machine with no significant liabilities.
Having the cash doesn't mean that you think you can spend more than a certain part of it. Do we know Google's plans for that cash? No, we don't. So it's very possible that they didn't think they could afford something they felt that they needed.
Quote where I keep insisting this? I've said several times, Google has an estimate of their worth to Google and an estimate of their worth to Apple, Apple has its own estimates. Nobody knows the value. But that's the second time you've accused me of stating something that I didn'tr state. Please quote where I stated that only google knew the value, otherwise drop this ridiculous line.
Ok, you did state that, but then gave it up, as in a clip from one of your posts above.
No, I simply say that if Google overbid then they have caused Apple to pay more than the value of the patents to Google. In that instance Google has reduced the net present value of the asset to Apple, even if it hasn't pushed it negative.
From the quotes above, you were saying that.
Next time you think I'm saying something ridiculous QUOTE WHERE I SAY IT.
I have, a number of times.
Yes you did, and I'll quote it, you said.
I'll put your quote of what I said in here so we can all see it in context:
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid."
And what if Google was wrong, and ended up paying hundreds of millions more themselves? It would have backfired if they didn't think that price was worth it. I think we can safely put that argument to rest."
And where in those two quotes you posted did I say that Google wouldn't overbid? What I said that they wouldn't intentionally attempt to get Apple to overpay. I've said in other posts that Google could overbid, but not for that purpose, perhaps in error.
How do you parse that other than it is you saying that we can dismiss the possibility that Google would intentionally overbid? Or how about
Sorry but unlike you, I'm not ascribing any opinion to you other than the ones that you clearly state.
Wow! You try to take a response to your assertion that Google probably overbid to cause Apple to pay more, where I'm asking what would have happened if that happened, as my saying it happened, or didn't happen? I'm not saying either thing. I'm questioning what would have happened, which is why I wrote all of those comments as questions?
You are projecting.
I'm simply stating what you're doing.
So let's get this clear. I've said numerous times that Google might have chosen to overbid, and I have been roundly criticized for saying it. You are now claiming that you agree that they might have overbid? Or are you still saying that they definitively didn't overbid after just claiming that you didn't say it?
I think we need to get this clear because at this point, in addition to completely misrepresenting what I'm saying, you seem also to be completely misrepresenting what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that I think it's unlikely that Google would have raised their bid above what they were willing to pay. This is what I've always said. Is that definite? Of course not. We can't get into their heads. But it's unlikely they would have done that. We both agree that it's dangerous, because it might not work.
I've quoted you a number of times, so it can be seen by others, even if you don't agree, that what I and others have been ascribing to you is correct, no matter how much you may deny it.