Inside look at $4.5B Nortel patent auction reveals battle of wills between Apple, Google - Page 3

Originally Posted by MacRulez

When what you call my error consists of words written by Appleinsider that I merely quoted, your problem is with the source, not the messenger.

In this case you've expressed a dislike for Mr. Cringely. I didn't coerce AppleInsider into quoting him; they chose that entirely on their own.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

I don't think it's quite that strong, but I do agree that it raises the bar for anybody trying to invalidate the patent or to claim non infringement in a similar case.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

No, you made a fundamental error, you mis-attributed a statement to AI and it was relevant. You frequently make comments about AI's reporting and in this instance you were implying that AI believed that Apple were doing this just to bash google - which the report didn't justify.

Next time you make a clanger like this you might find it better to just acknowledge it and move on rather than trying to immediately shift the blame or misdirect.

You're STILL trying to blame somebody else here, and still refusing to acknowledge you made a classic blunder.



I didn't express dislike - I commented on a recent huge mistake he made, only you would conflate the two. Again you chose to not quote their quotation but to mis-attribute it to them, which is my problem here.

Originally Posted by MacRulez

Let's take a fresh look at what I actually wrote:


http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=66

Note that I included the quotation marks around the phrase in question, and included AI's citation ("the report noted").

Try this exercise yourself: click the "Reply" button at the bottom the first entry in any article forum here, which will be the article itself. The result you get starts with the quoted article atributed to the author of the post, and since the first post is from AppleInsider it will show "AppleInsider wrote" as the attribution.

Aware that such a convention might mislead the reader if I had quoted Cringely's words without the quotation marks or AI's citation, I made sure to include both.

And had I altered this forum's default attribution to use "Cringely's report wrote" it would just confuse the reader, since "Cringley's report" is not a user here and quoting from the article itself always leads with "Apple Insider wrote" so folks know where it came from.

I'm not sure what's driving this. Your posts are usually among the very best here, often with excelling links where relevant and almost always with concise insight. Absent as they are of the sort of name-calling, ad hominem, racism, and silly "all non-Apple companies are either stupid or evil and must die!" drivel we see in so many others, I like your posts generally, which is why this one confuses me.

Please review my quoting the portion of the main article as I've done, and kindly explain how I might more clearly note that AI is quoting a report beyond using quotation marks and including the phrase "the report noted".

Originally Posted by stelligent

It's like this - if an accused settles with the prosecutor and agrees to a jail term, he/she can argue innocence all they want, it goes on their criminal record. At the same time, I am not sure though that MSFT can use this as supporting evidence in any case against another company, however similar or dissimilar the cases may be. It is, however, a strong suggestion to others that it may be easier to settle and get on with business, than to fight.

Contrary to ongoing arguments, HTC makes enough of a gross margin to afford the license fee, whatever it is (not $5).

Originally Posted by MacRulez

"I hate AI".

Originally Posted by stelligent

Wow, is this about who's right or who's more righteous? How about moving right along?

Originally Posted by Patranus

While this is fairly irrelevant news in terms of what Apple is/has been doing, this is a major blow to Google.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

A big chunk of 4G for starters. I think the global handset market is something like 1billion units per year - it doesn't look that insane.

My back of the envelope calculation is that for 20 years of patent with a market of 1billion devices per annum these licenses would only need to generate 30cents per device to cover the cost. I'm actually surprised it didn't go higher.

Originally Posted by AdonisSMU

Interesting. I like your post.

Originally Posted by Jacksons

Let's set some facts straight....

Playing online poker is NOT illegal. Playing online poker is NOT illegal even in the Unites States.

What is illegal in the Unites States is the transfer of money between US financial institutions and online gambling businesses.

Therefore, you can play online poker all you want in the United States. You simply can't get your money in and out of there via a US financial institution.

PS: I play a lot of online poker. Even today. And from the US.

Originally Posted by melgross

I'd like to know just why some companies decided to stop bidding when they did. If Google went to $4 billion, why not 4.5, why not 5? I read that Google doesn't seem to be totally committed to Android. Possibly that's correct.

But it's much more complex than that, which we can see with Apple and Google briefly turning up on the same side.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

I've been saying this for weeks now. It's like the old joke about the chicken and the pig, the chicken was involved in breakfast but the pig was committed - Google is only involved in mobile.

Where are you reading that?

The auction started with five parties, including two consortiums: Apple, Intel, Google, a consortium of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

It's not clear exactly why Google wanted the patents, did it want them to defend Android handset makers? It hasn't made a big effort to defend Android handset makers thus far so that seems odd. Did it want them to stop MS getting them? If so mission was accomplished. Did it want them to try to make handset makers adopt Android? Seems unlikely since it already has plenty of handset makers, but it's not impossible - there are occasional rumblings of discontent from the big Android OEMs.

Whatever it wanted them for we know one thing pretty much for sure, it didn't want them more than it wanted 5 billion dollars in cash or it could have kept bidding. I suspect this isn't as big a blow as is generally suggested.

My take on Google in mobile is unconventional, I think it's perfectly happy with the status quo where Android takes up all of the low end of the handset market, Apple taking up all of the high end. So long as MS can be kept out of mobile search things are OK by google and it can redirect resources to fighting on other fronts such as against facebook or IE.

I think those whimsical mathematical constant bids were just about it tweaking Apple's nose a bit, and it never really intended to go all out for the patent package.

Originally Posted by melgross

Near the top of the article:

Originally Posted by Patranus

Lets look at it this way. Right now Oracle claims that Google is infringing on its Java related patents. Since Google is relatively new, they have no patent portfolio so they really have nothing to bargain with outside of cash (licensing which is what they want to avoid).

Now if Google was able to secure these patents then they have something of value (outside of cash) that they can bring to the table.

The same thing can be said about their device manufacturers and Apple. Google would be able to come to the table and say hey Apple, you are infringing on our patents so drop the suits against the manufacturers infringing on your patents.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

You're misreading it, well in your defence AI isn't phrasing it clearly - let me reparse it

The auction started with five parties, Apple, Intel, Google and two consortiums (sic) one of Ericsson, Research in Motion, Microsoft, Sony and EMC, and a group led by defensive patent purchasing firm RPX.

So to start with A, I and G were all independent, and there were two consortia E/RIM/M/S/EMC and RPX standing for a bunch of asian makers we've barely heard of.

Originally Posted by melgross

Yes, that does read better. I'd did read elsewhere that Apple and Google were negotiating over this, and I suppose that led me to read it that way.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

Well it's unlikely to help against Oracle, Nortel just doesn't have a big overlap with them - it's unlikely Google has an equally significant patent to use against Oracle as Oracle has to use against them.



If they were willing to do that why aren't they helping with the current fights Apple v Samsung or Apple v HTC? They could have publicly stated their financial support for the litigation, they could have gone all out to invalidate some of Apple's key multitouch patents. They haven't.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

the "Rockstar" team, who placed a winning bid of $4.5 billion.

Update: I, Cringely reports:
Apple paid $2 billion
RIM and Ericsson paid $1.1 billion together
Microsoft and Sony reportedly each put up $1 billion.
EMC brokered a side deal for about $400 million

Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave

Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.

Originally Posted by MacRulez

Please find the post where I wrote, "I hate AI".

AI is like Drudge Report: it's an obviously slanted partisan tool designed for the sole purpose of driving eyeballs to narrowly-targeted ads at any cost, but can be helpful to even those interested in more balanced news on the occasional chance they turn up a good scoop, which like their ultra-rightest brethren Drudge happens at least once every week or two. Slanted or not, they're often quick.

I post here because I've been buying Macs since most of the readers here were in grade school, and chances are good that I've purchased many times more Macs than the majority here will buy over their lifetime. I want Apple to not just make money today, but to also be here in ten years.

Over this long span of enjoying Apple products, I've seen the company go through many phases. While the current phase looks good to those with a short-term view, awash in cash and all, such a short-term perspective overlooks the long-term implications of pissing off entire industries and would-be partners every month.

Tides change. Today is Apple's greatest day, but it would be a mistake to believe it will last forever. Nothing does.

When the tide changes again, will Apple have any friends left to keep itself afloat?

Those of us who've been Apple fans for as long as I have understand that sometimes building healthy relationships is as important as money, even for corporations.

In recent years we've seen Apple change its policies in sometimes radical ways, only to later backpedal after they generate enough backlash. The iOS SDK license 4.0, later undone by 4.1, is one example, and the in-app purchasing is another.

In the end Apple often winds up doing what the market demands of it, but along the way they just garner a lot of ill will and a reputation for being fickle. Had they simply done the right thing from the start, they could have generated a tremendous amount of goodwill and support. But insead they chose a different path, one that leads other companies and more than a few developers to distrust them.

I realize all this may seem silly to many of the readers here, and I suspect such skepticism will be rewarded by another eight quarters of strong performances.

But beware the third year.

Originally Posted by island hermit


Apple garners more ill will than Microsoft? Google? Intel?

Originally Posted by OccamsAftershave

Which adds up to $5.5 billion.
Perhaps Microsoft & Sony instead each put in only $500 million.

Originally Posted by MacRulez

Rather like the US senator said in response to Abu Ghraib: "At least we're not Saddam Hussein."

If you like the way Google and Microsoft operate, then there is no problem.

Originally Posted by AppleSauce007

You see, by violating Oracle's Java patents and Copyrights, Google is putting the whole company at risk just for Android. Larry Ellison going after them very hard, and when all is said and done, Android handset makers still have to pay royalties to Microsoft.

Time will tell.

Originally Posted by Galbi

Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.

Originally Posted by Galbi

Not hard enough. 17 of the 21 lawsuit claims were dismissed by the courts.

Originally Posted by MacRulez

Rather like the US senator said in response to Abu Ghraib: "At least we're not Saddam Hussein."

If you like the way Google and Microsoft operate, then there is no problem.

Originally Posted by island hermit

You're not making sense... and you also cherry picked my response.

Microsoft has pissed off everyone for over 20 years... boy does that show... nobody wants to do business with them and their business is almost bankrupt... what? wait...

I would like to know who is "really" pissed off at Apple other than a few fandroids.

Business is business... everyone knows that in the industry. I'd like to know one very successful company that hasn't pissed off a few other companies in their day... and yet they are still around.

Shit happens... nuff said.

Originally Posted by cloudgazer

So lets get this right, you think that Google is more evil than Apple but that Apple should have let them win the patents because Apple has to be better than Google, and if Google wants the patents then owning the patents must be evil - so Apple must not do it?

Or would you like to put it differently?