Google exec reiterates Motorola purchase not just for patents - Page 3

Not arrogance, experience. Large-scale M&A is my specialty. My insights extend beyond press releases and analyst write-ups. And well beyond the "basic fundamentals'" you're referring to.

Joined in August, 118 posts. Gee, it seems you aren't very short on words and likely one of our resident trolls come for another visit.

And you expected something else on a Apple-centric website? Seriously you're just here to stir the pot as it were. That's what I don't get. I own a Mac so Windows users call me a Mac fanboy. I have a PS3 so XBox users call me a Sony fanboy. I have a Dodge truck so Chevy and Ford drivers call me a Dodge fanboy. well you get the picture. Maybe I am. But there's one thing I'm not. I'm not going to Windows, XBox or Ford specific websites and expecting unbiased reporting from them. In fact I'm not going to them at all. Know why? I couldn't care less about Andriod, or Windows etc. I have absolutely no interest in them. Now I suppose I could go to "Andriod Insider" and bitch about how it sucks and all but really why? You like Andriod? Good on you. Go to an Andriod site and praise it and slam Apple but to come here and expect anything but what you're getting is a be delusional.

I see you just registered this year for posting on this site. I take it from seeing some of your posts that it seems as you did so just to, as I said earlier, "stir the pot." Sad.

Wow. What's with the huge influx of trolls?

Droid Pro, Cliq XT, Samsung's releasing several in this form factor. One of the benefits of Android is that it can be coded to fit a variety of form factors.


If Schmidt violated that trust, Apple would've taken him to court by now. I've signed NDA's before. They're pretty specific on what happens to you if you break them. That kinda stuff would give them a huge advantage (if true) in the lawsuits against android handset makers as well.

Yet they're silent. Also, Google makes a ton of money on the iphone, so why would they want to destroy it?


And it doesn't mean that they did steal from them either. If Google had secret knowledge thanks to Eric's position on Apple's board, they could take Eric to court over it and it would lend weight to their arguments against android. They haven't.

Furthermore, when Eric stepped down, one of the reasons BOTH Apple and Eric listed was that he had to excuse himself from meetings too often because of conflict of interest.

They may have been attracted by the recent increased level of criticism of other companies that has arisen from flopping tablets, patent disputes etc., and then found themselves well fed when they got here. AppleInsider seems to get quite prominent coverage on Google News, so it's not even as if you have to visit to see the headlines.

And it looks like the resulting sensitization may have led to some being mistaken for, and labelled as trolls when they perhaps were not trying to be. Then the bar fight started...

'And' to starting sentences with conjunctions ...

Sorry couldn't resist given the claims to excellence. However, I want to agree with you that the Googles screwed up. That is bad of me I know

Perhaps not whim but it sure looked rushed.


So your contention is that Google must have done all the due diligence required in vetting Motorola's patent portfolio because it would be stupid not to. But that's just an assumption that corporations never enter into stupid buying decisions...heck, I can't think of any bad tech mergers and acquisitions...ever. /sarcasm


Ah what? The reason that tax losses don't always consume cash is because it's used to offset the profits of another division or carried forward to offset profits in future years. But it's STILL a loss to lose a $1 to save $0.35 on taxes.

So on one side you can claim "Hey, Google gets a tax benefit!". On the other, what it really meant was that Moto's cash pile was smaller by that amount since they had to carry those losses forward because they couldn't offset non-existant or minimal profits.

Of course, without the billions in losses Moto wouldn't have been an acquisition target so you get what you get.


Because pretty much every step/option you describe costs money? Money that companies often report as a one-time write off as part of the costs of acquisition?

These costs will be offset by the sales and such but you can't JUST start with $12.9B and then deducting from that number using the full value of the sales or value of the assets (other than cash).

Any time you spend billions in cash (vs stock...huh, I wonder what Jha's prediction of the future value of Google stock was) at a huge mark up with a huge $2.5B withdrawal penalty six times the going rate you have to expect the impression that one CEO pulled the wool over the eyes of the other CEO in a big assed way and someone did an epic fail on their due diligence checks.

Arguing this is some awesome master stroke requires quite a few assumptions...the most major of which is that M&A isn't a blood sport and that Jha was looking for the most optimum outcome for all parties and not the optimum outcome for Motorola Mobility and himself. One CEO looks like a freaking genius. The other...well...we'll have to see but he made a huge hill for himself to climb and "Look Ma! Tax write offs!" is not exactly a good start, one fortunately he's not making for himself.

I highly doubt Google is going to make a press release saying "We're buying Motorola because it will keep up from having to pay taxes on our income" in a climate when large companies are already hated for tax dodging.

Add him to your ignore list . Ironic of him to even allude to the word 'design' in his handle and defend Google eh?

I love starting sentences with And and But. Its my way of rebelling.

But it's wrong. And you should know that.

Partial quote


The Freescale patents are what have me thinking there was a lack of something on Googles part. What is your insight on that as a potential, if accidental, trojan horse they invited in?

I got a phantom memory pain in my left ear from a long gone English teacher's gnarled fingers when I saw that.

Let me explain this simply to you: This is a Fanboy website.

It's like a football/baseball/whatever team. We support Apple here. We do not support anyone else regardless.

You do not see a NO Saints supporter cheering on the opposition, and nor do you see a Man United fan saying things like "Walcott scored a good goal against us".

This is an Apple site, and we're all rabidly Apple Fans. The clue is in the name of the site - Appleinsider.com.

It didn't used to be that way though. It used to be a decent apple news site, with some nice exclusives and interesting commentary on Apple's decisions. That was several years ago.

Now it can't even be called an "Apple Enthusiast" site. Your term "Fanboy website" is appropriate because the exclusives are (Largely) gone, as is pretty much ANY apple commentary. Instead, we're left with articles where apple "fanboys" (as you call them) try to pass off their commentary on Android, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Palm, etc to try and PROVE how much better Apple is.

There's a difference between being fans of something, and being fanboy's. Heck, most Rim/Android/Palm/etc fan sites are also some of those platforms biggest critics. AI doesn't even have that.

I can see why you would say that, but I think you may be over-generalizing. The articles have become a bit one-sided, and obviously the site in general has a slant, but the comments are still interesting and, in many cases, well thought out. There are several genuinely knowledgeable contributors on both sides of the arguments. There are also a few others, on both extremes, who add nothing useful, but I still learn a lot reading the forums.

Perhaps Eric can explain this patent then:

Google Gets An Absurd Patent For Its "Google Doodles"

Yep the Nortel purchase was one of their less innovation more defensive moves. Moto is not a company that has demonstrated a degree of innovation to interest Apple, I think. I seem to recall some approbation when Apple partnered with them to do the ROKR.

Bull. If you did large-scale M&A, you wouldn't make so many obvious blunders.


That is, of course, nonsense.

Schmidt could have gotten (and disseminated) a lot of information without breaking his NDA. Furthermore, proving that he violated the NDA would not be easy. That doesn't mean that he didn't do it.

The evidence is pretty clear. Look at Android's direction pre-iPhone and compare it to Android post-iPhone. And look at the timing. The change happened within months - far too quickly for it to be a simple market response.

You're making the frequent error of focusing on one single Android phone mockup that happened to have similarities with the Blackberry's. But it was only one of reportedly 5 different Android smartphone ideas proposed by different manufacturers that Google was showing around to potential Alliance partners. At least one of those was said to be a touchscreen phone, designed by Samsung no less.

FWIW, Google did not design the early Android phones as I understand it. Those mockups originated with the handset manufacturers.

Do you mean like mistaking deferred cash tax losses for operating cash flow as you did?

Time will show that I'm right.

Where did I do that? Oh, yeah. You made it up.


Nonsense. It might or might not show Google's acquisition of Motorola to be a mistake - but I never took a position on that.

It will NOT support your argument that tax losses are irrelevant or should not be a part of the decision to buy a company.

If It's so "Obvious" to you, a person on the internet, I'm sure it would be even more "obvious" to lawyers and engineers.

And again, Android was made to be put on a variety of devices, a variety of form factors.

Maybe those Rim/Android/Palm sites feel free to criticize their respective platform choices because they're not infested with trolls and haters?

I would say the rise of "fanboyism" on this site is directly proportional to the influx of Android partisans who for some reason feel that they simply can't allow enthusiasm for iOS to go unchallenged, even if it means going way out of their way.

It's much less likely for a given member to feel conformable with criticizing Apple's policies or products when it's likely to put them at least tangentially in agreement with assholes.

Yes, clearly anyone who doesn't believe in both of Google's contradictory positions on the Motorola acquisition is clearly biased and full of teething hate. What's wrong with these Apple sheep? Why don't they just love Google and accept them as the mobile innovator that Apple is obviously copying, because Windows Mobile 6 didn't have copy/paste and multitasking before Android invented it.

Now would you really want to directly pick a fight with the company that provides a fair amount of popular applications for your platform, at least until you have backups? That wouldn't be very smart.

I do recall it being reported that Jobs told Apple staff that Google is trying to kill the iPhone, and Apple wouldn't' let it happen. Sounds like fighting words to me. Next thing you know Jobs buddy Ellison buys Sun's Java, and is suing Google.

Apple's frenemy Microsoft is taking a chunk out of Google's friends butts by getting royalty payments.

Apple's giving Google's partners HTC and Samsung a bruising.

It is interesting to revisit what Android looked like before and after iPhone. The copying is made worst by Google's acting CEO sitting on Apple's Board of Directors. Eric knew Google was coming out with a phone that would copy Apple. Yet he didn't resign.

Ah yeah ok... a year is pretty 'immediate', wtf, why write something about someone's time on site without even reading the joined date? You should IM the site, they like writers like you, LOL ;-p

But seriously though, I only stated the facts to help AbsoluteDesignz out, as he didn't seem to know what a rabid bunch of psychopaths some (NOT ALL) Apple fan boys can be and I simply suggested he shouldn't let it bother him.