Apple exec says Google spent 'a lot of money' on Motorola - Page 2

Originally Posted by 9secondko

What is truly anticompetitive is sitting in board meetings and stealing ideas from a truly innovative company and then turning around and selling a knockoff of that product.


Google is the anticompetitive company here. Apple has to protect themselves.

12.5 Billion ?!?

desperation move. Google knows they were being "evil" and is doing everything to avoid the consequences.

They are not a mobility company. They are a software company. google just might be shooting themselves in the foot here.

wht do they gain? Motorola's mobility division is going down, their hardware is lame and their software isn't any better.

It has to be the patents they hold.

Beyond that, Google gains nothing. Not even CPU know-how. Motorola long ago spun off FreeScale, os that option is not on the table.

12.5 billion to gain some patents that may not even be defensible.

pure desperation. Be interesting to see what this does to Google's value over the next two years. I'll be grabbing some popcorn...

Originally Posted by invoice


Considering the claim against Samsung:
Rectangular format
rounded corners
centered screen
metal frame
neutral band

This was what Apple must have meant. Sorry, wrong picture. That one was built in 2006 by HP

Originally Posted by droideggs

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but how is the 12.5 billion acquisition a bad deal?

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Apple actually made them matter.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Ask the markets.

Unless you believe (and the market does too) that you know more than it does.....

Otherwise, move along.

Originally Posted by droideggs

any company who overtakes a smaller company with an acquisition this large always has initial negative impact on the company. thats nothing new.

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.

Originally Posted by droideggs

you go by investors opinions?

any company who overtakes a smaller company with an acquisition this large always has initial negative impact on the company. thats nothing new.

funny how you skipped out on the math portion of my statement too

Originally Posted by tbell

beside a lot of your history being messed up (e.g. The first mouse was credited to douglas engelbart from the stanford research institute who built the first prototype in 1963), what is your point?

You somehow seem to equate first with being original. For instance, you could create an mp3 player before me, and i can build one much later that is significantly different, maybe even better. Are you suggesting because i build a mp3 player after you, i didn't invent my own technology. That is bs. Take for instance your incorrect example of the computer mouse. Xerox's bill english built a mouse based on englehert's work. It cost $400 to build. Apple was looking to bring a computer to market for about $2, 000. It couldn't use a mouse that cost that much to build. Instead, apple created some serious magic and figured out how to build a mouse that did the same thing as the $400 mouse, but for $25.

Out of all the examples you provide below, apple either paid for the technology upon which it build on (e.g. Itunes, cover flow, finger works), or outright brought its own design to the table. People don't understand apple paid xerox by giving it one million dollars worth of its pre-ipo shares. Do you know what that would be worth today? In exchange, all apple got was a visit to xerox parc where apple could view a gui in action (which was helpful because apple's engineers already wanted to build a gui product, but needed to convince jobs it was feasible).

Apple isn't complaining about hp or microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of apple's products, right down tot he packaging.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

You're really pretty clueless when it comes to understanding how markets react to acquisitions, aren't you?

Btw, the word is not 'overtakes,' but rather takes over.

Originally Posted by solipsism

"A lot of money"? Let's call it what it is a desperate defensive move resulting in Google paying too much for the real world value of Motorola.



1) Patents are equal value items. You're one of those people that look at a spec sheet to see basic features without considering how they are implemented or if they are even usable.

2) Are you fudging the numbers? What are the chances that the Novell and Motorola patents cost exactly the same right down to one-billionth of a penny?

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Either way they have damaged any trust they had by their partners -- and further tarnished Google's and Android's reputation.

Originally Posted by TBell

Apple isn't complaining about HP or Microsoft because those companies are bringing their own designs to the table. Samsung's products are almost exact replicates of some of Apple's products, right down tot he packaging.

Originally Posted by droideggs

Hi Mr. Grammar Policeman.

overtakes, takeover, same diff. you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics.

you still haven't given a reasonable answer to the math i provided above.



Everyone is so touchy. I just provided some basic math.

I'm not fudging numbers. I actually got these figures from news reports. Those figures are accurate. Are they to the closest cent? No.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

From the form and content it is clear that this droid fan is either a 13 year-old, or thinks and expresses himself like one. No point in engaging. Unless you are a 13 year-old girl.

Originally Posted by droideggs

can we stay on point here?

i thought we were discussing the value of the acquisition.

Originally Posted by thompr

I'm sure Google has already reassured its partners that it doesn't intend on decimating the "Android Army". I'm sure they also told them that they will use these patents to protect their flanks, which Apple, and Microsoft have been harrying. Makes sense, no?

Thompson

Originally Posted by Leonard

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.

Originally Posted by SOLSTICE1221

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.

Originally Posted by blecch

Larry Page isn't stupid - he's a Stanford Ph.D. dropout after all (as is Sergey Brin, and, er, Yahoo!'s Jerry Yang.)

Originally Posted by SOLSTICE1221

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.

Originally Posted by SOLSTICE1221

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.

Originally Posted by invoice

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

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

But because he is rich, he is convinced he is right. Otherwise he wouldn't be rich, right?

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Sorry, not a 13 year-old girl.

Originally Posted by Bilbo63

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.

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.

Originally Posted by invoice

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

Originally Posted by tlevier

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?

Originally Posted by island hermit

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.

Originally Posted by island hermit

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.

Originally Posted by jukes

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.

Originally Posted by droideggs

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.

Originally Posted by droideggs

... overtakes, takeover, same diff.

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.

Originally Posted by droideggs

you know you fail at an argument when you start going into semantics. ...

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.

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.