Motorola purchase gives Google 17K issued, 7.5K filed patents - Page 2

Nortel's LTE patents are what Moto doesn't have, and with the next auction coming up Google's position for them will be diddly squat and they knew so they bought Moto Mobility instead. Shareholders will be swallowing a bitter pill in a few months and Apple investors will continue to reap the rewards for Apple's expertise technically and legally.

Google knew it couldn't stop Apple or Microsoft but had to show some effort of being still viable so Moto Mobility was their only option.

It appears some investors are dumping GOOG stock as it's down > $10/share today.

That's nuts - why would Google pay 12BN for moto's patents if they're worth less than Nortels and not bid that high for Nortel? Whatever else, clearly Google believes it's getting something of value from Moto, though they may turn out to be wrong.

My how apple coloured glasses you wear. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You mean Nortel only researched and patented LTE-related inventions?

Thousands and thousands of patents.

I wonder if the majority of them are as vaguely worded as the ones we've seen connected with lawsuits.

I don't anyone suggested that Google was not serious about the Nortel patents. You don't offer "Pi billion dollars" if you're not serious.


That's not true. For someone like RIM or HTC or Samsung, the hardware business would be very attractive if they get a license to use the IP. They wouldn't need to own the IP to be interested.

Furthermore, there are a bunch of products in the portfolio which don't involve Apple at all - baby monitors, home phone systems, and lots of other stuff that's completely unrelated.

I think Apple will go directly after Google now that they have unwisely inserted themselves into this legal tangle.

Why do nearly every one of your posts use colors and/or huge type? The rest of us get by quite nicely without them. You seem like you're begging for attention.

oh im sorry did i offend you?

This is the huge giggle out of all this....

Google spends ONE BILLION dollars to buy a bot load of patents from IBM.
Google spends TWELVE BILLION dollars (buying mot mobile) to acquire a boat load more patents.

And all this because Google can't compete in the technology marketplace without them...

NOW ... What's the purpose of patents again? To protect the inventor? Yea, I'm just not seeing it. A small-time inventor today doesn't stand a chance of truly profiting from his or her invention patented or not. The best they could possibly hope for is someone buy them out for chump-change then it'll be Engulf-n-Devour ltd. who will profit handsomely from the inventors hard work.

Funny thing is thats the BEST thing that could happen to the inventor... Chances are they will get sue into oblivian once they make some patent whores radar.

Reform? I think Googles spending answers that question quite clearly.

Not at all. But if you wish to be taken seriously, you're going about it wrong.

oh i'm sorry i was being sarcastic.

Just offering some advice from someone with quite a lot of experience dealing with forum members at several different sites. Whether it's welcome advice is up to you.

Don't see how that applies...but okay....sure...


Droid is licensed by Werizon, not motorola, from LucasArts


I'm pretty sure they do, most of them are probably basics. "Method for connected to another mobile device after dialing a series of numbers blah blah blah"


They bought Android and it is hardly a clone of the iPhone, stop being disingenuous from it's original inception to now it has indeed become more icon based than it was before (and please don't bring up that damn BB-style prototype as that was only one prototype, Android was always meant to be used on a multitude of form-factors, all touch being one of them) But yea, Android was inspired heavily by the success of iPhone...no doubt about it...but a clone? let's be real. Apple ushered in a new Market...they cannot be the only player there.

WebOS was a response to Apple iOS and Google Android...


Call it a hunch but something tells me you pulled that out of your butt...

The necessary Open Source parts of Honeycomb have been released in accordance to the license. Yes people are still waiting for the full 3.0 Source code but I think Google is smart to hold on to it to avoid second rate OEMs dirtying up the name of Android's latest system by forcing it onto phones. If ICS does not get released open source then you may have a point. But at this point stop assuming.

Also Google has expressed no desire to compete exclusively on the hardware front. I don't see how this changes anything.


True. But at this point we can only base what we know on what was said.

There's a lot of assuming at this point.

Just a question...honest one.

If you were a small time inventor, with a new invention that more than likely infringes on patents owned by a few big corporations who would you be more wary of:

Google
Apple
Microsoft

???

Google the COPY-CAT company of course.

Over the years, Google f6cked or tried to f6ck dozens of smaller & larger companies by copying their products and releasing it's own version.

Yelp, Facebook, Twitter, (Google buzz/wave/g+), Youtube (Google Video), iPhone, iPad, Groupon (Google offers), Paypal( Google checkout), Java, Skyhook, etc.

Wanna bet that MS does just that. Their cash and short term investments is $53B.

Ballmer is desperate and even if he wasn't, just to make GOOG pay $15.5B would be worth while.

All of the above and a boatload more...

Any established technology company could crush and devour some pesky start-up inventor (patent or not) and in the end the lowly inventor would be lucky to get bought-out for a pittance. Fact is, all the inventor would likely get for his or her time and hard work would be a big fat legal bill and be forced into bankruptcy.

Some may drag out the name Robert Kearns and his victory over the auto industry (Ford, Chrysler,etc) on his intermittent wiper patent. Yes! Robert was successful to the tune of $30+ million dollars. However the fight took years* and cost him his family in the process (reportedly his wife left him due to the stress of the trials).

*how many years you ask? 1964-1982+

Could you imagine being able to endure that amount of time (and money)? Many people would have given up and/or gone bankrupt over that number of years. So yes VICTORY but at what cost?

It should be said that awarded patents are ONLY designed to protect the inventor who has enough money and time to outwit and outlast a corporation trying to steamroll them otherwise a patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

All of the big boys have decided that lawsuits are the way to go into the future.... They ALL asked for it and now they have it.... I suspect that we will see more consolidation....

Palm was one of the first companies working in this space. I recall seeing a Palm patent that covered using a light sensor to dim a screen. I don't know whether Apple has a license or not, but that gives you an idea of the firepower that might exist in the HP portfolio. Google on the other hand has a pile of patents related to snooping around in people's emails.

Actually, the Kearns situation doesn't happen today because we now have a market for these types of patents. The patents get bought up and enforced by "non-practicing entities" (aka patent trolls). I like the more descriptive term "patent litigation investors" rather than Trolls. Everyone thinks trolls are evil. However, I think they are a necessary evil created by a more evil and sinister corporate America that tried to subvert the patent system.

On several occasions I have pointed out to this forum that the trolls would go away if corporations bought the technology at a reasonable price. It would save a lot of money by cutting out the middle men (i.e., the lawyers and trolls). It is such a simple solution, it drives me nuts that it isn't discussed more openly.

And those big corporations paying a higher price for patents would help ensure higher revenue for the lawyers handling the patent sales, with less work needed to complete the transactions. Mutually beneficial and an admirable goal.

Okay... however I'm fairly confidant that these 'benevolent' organizations aren't paying the hardworking inventors a great sum for the patents they create. They like everyone is out to pay as little as possible for the greatest possible return.

In other words, the trolls aren't any better than the anti-competitive technology firms who wield patents like a sword. I believe it's safe to say the LION-SHARE of tech-centric inventions are built almost entirly on the foundation of previous works (patented or not) and are just worded cleverly enough to pass off as original designs.

In app purchasing is nothing more than a mail-order catalog without the 800 number nor the paper. Actually anyone who buys online does 'in app purchasing' when you take a second to thing about it... After all isn't a web browser an App?

Even the web was far from an original idea. As noted in this story you'll find the following text.


What I'm saying is many things are sold to us as 'original inventions' turn out to be anything but.

Well, for one thing, a good deal of their patents may be Japan-only.