It's a crock of crap. They were given tax free through loop holes to off-shore it and instead of paying the 35% to bring it back in they want to cut it down to 5%.
They can grow up and realize the lowest the US should allow it back in for is 20%.
And yes the Government is concerned which is the reason they rejected the 5% offer.
We're talking about slightly different things.
First of all that income does get taxed overseas. At what rate depends on the country, and the deals the companies have with them.
The government isn't concerned about the money earned overseas remaining overseas. That was what I was saying. I expected the government to reject the offer, especially these days. If the economy was better, and everyone wasn't so concerned about taxes, I'd bet that the government would have been friendlier to the idea. But right now, it's a political football.
Silly! When the bidding was lower than $3B, they were able to bid, in increasing order, Brun's constant, Meissel?Mertens constant and e. Obviously, they were able to go past $3B with a $3.14159 ... bid. But, once past $4B? Well, they did bid the Feigenbaum constant. Unfortunately for them, this proved to be confusing. You see - the first Feigenbaum constant is 4.6692..., the 2nd Feigenbaum constant is 2.5029 ... The auctioneer thought of the second one only and declared Apple the winner.
I did read it - you missed the key point. Solipsism is absolutely right when he said that part of the point for Google is to make competitors overpay. Yes Google didn't need the patents for itself but it could easily easily afford more than 4.5billion. So if there was 'no doubt that Apple was gonna win' Google should have kept bidding, because no doubt Apple would have outbid them.
If you were correct Google had a riskless way to damage Apple's business, on the other hand if you were wrong as I contend then it was all much more complicated than that. Google was either bidding to drive the price up for Apple, or bidding to win but hoping that Apple would think it was trying to drive up the price. If the former then Google wants to push Apple right up to its limit, if the latter then Google wants Apple to think that it's doing the former and that the price is already over the value to Google.
So I stand by my point, if you really think that Apple was 100% certain to walk away with the patents, then you are crazy and have no understanding of auctions. Because as Apple themselves would be aware, at a certain price that would constitute losing.
Apple could afford far more than Google if they needed to, as Apple makes vastly more from their iOS products and sidelines than Google can ever hope to make of the small licensing revenue for Maps and such, plus the Ad revenue.
If I expect to make twenty times as much as you do, i can afford to spend more thn you can to insure i keep making twenty times as much.
Granted, there isn't a one to one ratio here, but it's just as important.
As we can see from the amount Apple is paying Nokia, patents are of vast importance. This can mean that Apple won't have to pay billions in licensing fees.
You're making even less sense here than normal. 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.
Whoa now brother! That statement is way off any reasonable mark. You are saying that Google is the only one who knows how much those patents are worth? Ridiculous!
The far more likely reason why their group stopped bidding was that it became too expensive FOR THEM. It has nothing to do with anyone else bidding there. Apple's $2 billion might be considered to be a bargain at Apple, and they might be celebrating because they got it so cheaply.
Quote:
Why would Google be scared of Apple massively out bidding them? Do you think they get scared by large sums of money? The only fear Google has near X is that Rockstar pulls out. Until you can understand that simple concept I can't help you, in fact I doubt anybody can.
Scared wouldn't be the proper term, concerned might be a better one. If Google was really concerned that they needed those patents, and Apple, MS and others had more money, then Google would feel as though they had to pull out, because if they didn't, and by the way, their partners had something to say about that too, they would be forced to overbid their top position. And the patents are of less value to them, because of their lack of large, direct income, such as Apple has. From the report, they already needed to ask to bid higher, so they already needed to compete against more money than they expected to need.
Quote:
Look imagine the absolute simplest possible auction of an Asset X. X is worth A to Apple and G to Google, and in our approximation lets pretend that both parties know both values - let's also assume for convenience that A > G.
Bidding proceeds quickly to G and then gets complex. In principle Google can push Apple all the way to A and it's still in Apple's interest to outbid, but at some point Apple may decide that it's better to let Google overpay, even though they would be leaving value on the table. So even in this scenario where there is perfect knowledge of value there is a sophisticated question as to how far Google bids. It depends on whether Google's loss is Apple's gain and in what proportion, and vice-versa. If you know that final relationship then in our unrealistic approximation then you know the correct value for Google to stop bidding.
Once you introduce real world uncertainties it rapidly gets very complicated.
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.
Apple alone had the iOS product sales to enforce a much higher bid than Google alone.
So in several years, Apple could be selling close to $100 billion of iOS related products a year, while Google might be making $5 or $6 billion a year on Ads and licensing from Android.
To whom do you think the patents would hold more value? I hope you thought ; Apple.
Whoa now brother! That statement is way off any reasonable mark. You are saying that Google is the only one who knows how much those patents are worth? Ridiculous!
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.
Quote:
From the report, they already needed to ask to bid higher, so they already needed to compete against more money than they expected to need.
Erm, I think you're misreading what that meant, or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean. Google asked the auctioneer to be allowed to increase the increments, ie. if bidding had been going up in 200mils, they asked the auctioneer to switch it to 500mils. That doesn't imply that Google felt there was an unexpected amount of money needed - in fact it may have meant that they felt that the price would go far higher than the Auctioneer expected, or they may have been attempting to send a signal of determination, or bluffing, or double bluffing. etc.
Quote:
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.
And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?
Quote:
To whom do you think the patents would hold more value? I hope you thought ; Apple.
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.
The more certain Apple is to continue to bid the greater the motivation for Google to bid greater than it's own perceived value.
Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first? If Google was seeking to maximize value to itself and minimize value to Apple it didn't stop because it was reaching its own limit, it stopped because it felt it was nearing the point where Apple would let it win.
I disagree. It makes no difference at all. What has really happened is that they lost the auction in an area in which they needed to win.
Wait - you also said in a different post that
Quote:
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.
I would contend that you were wrong on both counts, neither Apple nor Google needed to win at all costs, this wasn't like a mobile spectrum auction when losing means you essentially pack up and quit the business.
The patents have an estimated value to both Apple and Google, and that value is most likely different. But neither need them, or the price would have been much much higher.
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.
I think your whole theory that Google's strategy was to get others to overbid is nonsense and nothing more than a fantasy based on a fairy tale view of what Google is. They wanted and needed the patents. Intel also wanted the patents and it's extremely unlikely they would have participated in such a "game". Google's bids weren't clever, they were simply juvenile.
Where there any price specific guidelines attached to these patents? ex. if the bid goes higher than X amount of dollars then such and such conditions must be agreed to?
I think your whole theory that Google's strategy was to get others to overbid is nonsense and nothing more than a fantasy based on a fairy tale view of what Google is. They wanted and needed the patents. Intel also wanted the patents and it's extremely unlikely they would have participated in such a "game". Google's bids weren't clever, they were simply juvenile.
Don't bother trying... Cloudgazer views Google as the all seeing all knowing omniscient being who completely dazzled Apple and all the others with their otherworldly mathematical bids... stunning the rest of the pack with their brilliance so much that Apple, Microsoft and the other members of Rockstar could do nothing but blindly obey and overbid.
I bow to his knowledge... it is too outstanding for me to comprehend...
[ on edit - ... remembering, of course, that all bidding was done by packs of lawyers... ]
The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.
a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder
or
b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
If it was b. then it's obvious that Rockstar Bidco. didn't overpay but instead made an aggressive bid at the end to show Google that there was lots of gas left in the tank and that Google should never have brought a knife to a gun fight... stupid bids and all.
More crap like this and Google will be perceived as Apple has always been perceived in the investment community... a company with a funny name run by a bunch of punks in a garage. Borrowing from Winston Churchill (concerning Apple)... "some punk... some garage"...
The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.
a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder
or
b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
...
b. a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
Don't bother trying... Cloudgazer views Google as the all seeing all knowing omniscient being who completely dazzled Apple and all the others with their otherworldly mathematical bids... stunning the rest of the pack with their brilliance so much that Apple, Microsoft and the other members of Rockstar could do nothing but blindly obey and overbid.
On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.
Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)
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.
That would still be wrong. You're constantly making the assumption that Google and its group are smarter, and know more than the competition. It's just as likely to be the opposite.
Quote:
Erm, I think you're misreading what that meant, or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean. Google asked the auctioneer to be allowed to increase the increments, ie. if bidding had been going up in 200mils, they asked the auctioneer to switch it to 500mils. That doesn't imply that Google felt there was an unexpected amount of money needed - in fact it may have meant that they felt that the price would go far higher than the Auctioneer expected, or they may have been attempting to send a signal of determination, or bluffing, or double bluffing. etc.
That's not clear. I don't know why they would need to ask the auctioneer, unless the quads tee they gave in the beginning was too small, and they were asking to raise it. If so, and it seems likely, then it's what I said. I doubt the bidding was moving to 500 mil per bid. We're reading that it was $100 mil per bid, which seems reasonable. Besides, if they were asking that, then they couldn't have bid those odd amounts.
Quote:
And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?
Surely no, that's not clear. They aren't playing tiddlywinks here. They're bidding billions of dollars. What would have happened if Google bid much more than they originally wanted (which looks to be the case anyway), and won? You don't bluff at these things. I've been to enough auctions in addition to buying hundreds of things on eBay to know that. It's also against the rules. Besides, their competitors had much more money than they did, it wouldn't have mattered if Apple did pay a couple of hundred of million more.
Quote:
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.
The more certain Apple is to continue to bid the greater the motivation for Google to bid greater than it's own perceived value.
Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first? If Google was seeking to maximize value to itself and minimize value to Apple it didn't stop because it was reaching its own limit, it stopped because it felt it was nearing the point where Apple would let it win.
I would contend that you were wrong on both counts, neither Apple nor Google needed to win at all costs, this wasn't like a mobile spectrum auction when losing means you essentially pack up and quit the business.
The patents have an estimated value to both Apple and Google, and that value is most likely different. But neither need them, or the price would have been much much higher.
I don't see how those two statements contradict each other. Actually, they're complementary.
No one is talking about "at all costs". And of course they all needed them to a certain extent, or there would have been much lower bidding. You're ignoring the reality here. The bids for this ended up being three times the estimates, as has been stated by those setting this up, and others. It's also been stated by those in the patent industry that this was the most expensive patent auction ever.
Obviously, this was considered to be very important to all of these companies.
But as I've continuously stated, which you seem to be ignoring, Apple will be making vastly more on the products which will rely on these than Google will ever have the hope to be making, so they are worth far more to Apple, though it is very possible that Apple got them for less than Google itself bid.
The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.
a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder
or
b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
If it was b. then it's obvious that Rockstar Bidco. didn't overpay but instead made an aggressive bid at the end to show Google that there was lots of gas left in the tank and that Google should never have brought a knife to a gun fight... stupid bids and all.
More crap like this and Google will be perceived as Apple has always been perceived in the investment community... a company with a funny name run by a bunch of punks in a garage. Borrowing from Winston Churchill (concerning Apple)... "some punk... some garage"...
That's really closer to what happens at auctions. I've done it myself when bidding on rare books. You get to a point where you want to close the bidding down. So if that was what happened, it would make sense.
An auction has minimum bids, which can be upped at any time by those bidding, but never brought down, unless the auctioneer, and there's always someone in charge, which would be the lawyers in whose offices the bidding was taking place, decides that the property wasn't getting enough bids, and so lowers the value of the bids. But that doesn't seem to have happened here.
Once the final grouping was decided, enough money was likely available to let them increase that last bid. Who knows what would have happened if Google's group responded. But they were out of gas.
On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.
Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)
I thought that this was going to be similar to that, but Google made that one bid, and then stopped. The price would have gone up without Google's bid back then, and this time they really wanted those patents.
I really think it would have been better for them to have attempted to join another group instead of acting in opposition. I also don't understand why Intel went with them when the other group was also courting them. They should have seen the likely outcome with both Apple and MS on the same side, having won't the bidding for Novells' patents earlier.
Comments
I don't agree with their idea.
It's a crock of crap. They were given tax free through loop holes to off-shore it and instead of paying the 35% to bring it back in they want to cut it down to 5%.
They can grow up and realize the lowest the US should allow it back in for is 20%.
And yes the Government is concerned which is the reason they rejected the 5% offer.
We're talking about slightly different things.
First of all that income does get taxed overseas. At what rate depends on the country, and the deals the companies have with them.
The government isn't concerned about the money earned overseas remaining overseas. That was what I was saying. I expected the government to reject the offer, especially these days. If the economy was better, and everyone wasn't so concerned about taxes, I'd bet that the government would have been friendlier to the idea. But right now, it's a political football.
Silly! When the bidding was lower than $3B, they were able to bid, in increasing order, Brun's constant, Meissel?Mertens constant and e. Obviously, they were able to go past $3B with a $3.14159 ... bid. But, once past $4B? Well, they did bid the Feigenbaum constant. Unfortunately for them, this proved to be confusing. You see - the first Feigenbaum constant is 4.6692..., the 2nd Feigenbaum constant is 2.5029 ... The auctioneer thought of the second one only and declared Apple the winner.
You're welcome.
Funny, but you should quote the source, don't you think? http://bit.ly/j09zLB
I did read it - you missed the key point. Solipsism is absolutely right when he said that part of the point for Google is to make competitors overpay. Yes Google didn't need the patents for itself but it could easily easily afford more than 4.5billion. So if there was 'no doubt that Apple was gonna win' Google should have kept bidding, because no doubt Apple would have outbid them.
If you were correct Google had a riskless way to damage Apple's business, on the other hand if you were wrong as I contend then it was all much more complicated than that. Google was either bidding to drive the price up for Apple, or bidding to win but hoping that Apple would think it was trying to drive up the price. If the former then Google wants to push Apple right up to its limit, if the latter then Google wants Apple to think that it's doing the former and that the price is already over the value to Google.
So I stand by my point, if you really think that Apple was 100% certain to walk away with the patents, then you are crazy and have no understanding of auctions. Because as Apple themselves would be aware, at a certain price that would constitute losing.
Apple could afford far more than Google if they needed to, as Apple makes vastly more from their iOS products and sidelines than Google can ever hope to make of the small licensing revenue for Maps and such, plus the Ad revenue.
If I expect to make twenty times as much as you do, i can afford to spend more thn you can to insure i keep making twenty times as much.
Granted, there isn't a one to one ratio here, but it's just as important.
As we can see from the amount Apple is paying Nokia, patents are of vast importance. This can mean that Apple won't have to pay billions in licensing fees.
You're making even less sense here than normal. 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.
Whoa now brother! That statement is way off any reasonable mark. You are saying that Google is the only one who knows how much those patents are worth? Ridiculous!
The far more likely reason why their group stopped bidding was that it became too expensive FOR THEM. It has nothing to do with anyone else bidding there. Apple's $2 billion might be considered to be a bargain at Apple, and they might be celebrating because they got it so cheaply.
Why would Google be scared of Apple massively out bidding them? Do you think they get scared by large sums of money? The only fear Google has near X is that Rockstar pulls out. Until you can understand that simple concept I can't help you, in fact I doubt anybody can.
Scared wouldn't be the proper term, concerned might be a better one. If Google was really concerned that they needed those patents, and Apple, MS and others had more money, then Google would feel as though they had to pull out, because if they didn't, and by the way, their partners had something to say about that too, they would be forced to overbid their top position. And the patents are of less value to them, because of their lack of large, direct income, such as Apple has. From the report, they already needed to ask to bid higher, so they already needed to compete against more money than they expected to need.
Look imagine the absolute simplest possible auction of an Asset X. X is worth A to Apple and G to Google, and in our approximation lets pretend that both parties know both values - let's also assume for convenience that A > G.
Bidding proceeds quickly to G and then gets complex. In principle Google can push Apple all the way to A and it's still in Apple's interest to outbid, but at some point Apple may decide that it's better to let Google overpay, even though they would be leaving value on the table. So even in this scenario where there is perfect knowledge of value there is a sophisticated question as to how far Google bids. It depends on whether Google's loss is Apple's gain and in what proportion, and vice-versa. If you know that final relationship then in our unrealistic approximation then you know the correct value for Google to stop bidding.
Once you introduce real world uncertainties it rapidly gets very complicated.
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.
Apple alone had the iOS product sales to enforce a much higher bid than Google alone.
So in several years, Apple could be selling close to $100 billion of iOS related products a year, while Google might be making $5 or $6 billion a year on Ads and licensing from Android.
To whom do you think the patents would hold more value? I hope you thought ; Apple.
Whoa now brother! That statement is way off any reasonable mark. You are saying that Google is the only one who knows how much those patents are worth? Ridiculous!
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.
From the report, they already needed to ask to bid higher, so they already needed to compete against more money than they expected to need.
Erm, I think you're misreading what that meant, or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean. Google asked the auctioneer to be allowed to increase the increments, ie. if bidding had been going up in 200mils, they asked the auctioneer to switch it to 500mils. That doesn't imply that Google felt there was an unexpected amount of money needed - in fact it may have meant that they felt that the price would go far higher than the Auctioneer expected, or they may have been attempting to send a signal of determination, or bluffing, or double bluffing. etc.
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.
And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?
To whom do you think the patents would hold more value? I hope you thought ; Apple.
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.
The more certain Apple is to continue to bid the greater the motivation for Google to bid greater than it's own perceived value.
Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first? If Google was seeking to maximize value to itself and minimize value to Apple it didn't stop because it was reaching its own limit, it stopped because it felt it was nearing the point where Apple would let it win.
I disagree. It makes no difference at all. What has really happened is that they lost the auction in an area in which they needed to win.
Wait - you also said in a different post that
Not only did the group with Apple and MS have more money to bid than Google's final group, but they had what they perceived as a greater need.
I would contend that you were wrong on both counts, neither Apple nor Google needed to win at all costs, this wasn't like a mobile spectrum auction when losing means you essentially pack up and quit the business.
The patents have an estimated value to both Apple and Google, and that value is most likely different. But neither need them, or the price would have been much much higher.
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.
I think your whole theory that Google's strategy was to get others to overbid is nonsense and nothing more than a fantasy based on a fairy tale view of what Google is. They wanted and needed the patents. Intel also wanted the patents and it's extremely unlikely they would have participated in such a "game". Google's bids weren't clever, they were simply juvenile.
I think your whole theory that Google's strategy was to get others to overbid is nonsense and nothing more than a fantasy based on a fairy tale view of what Google is. They wanted and needed the patents. Intel also wanted the patents and it's extremely unlikely they would have participated in such a "game". Google's bids weren't clever, they were simply juvenile.
Don't bother trying... Cloudgazer views Google as the all seeing all knowing omniscient being who completely dazzled Apple and all the others with their otherworldly mathematical bids... stunning the rest of the pack with their brilliance so much that Apple, Microsoft and the other members of Rockstar could do nothing but blindly obey and overbid.
I bow to his knowledge... it is too outstanding for me to comprehend...
[ on edit - ... remembering, of course, that all bidding was done by packs of lawyers... ]
I bow to his knowledge... it is too outstanding for me to comprehend...
Increasingly that doesn't look like irony
a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder
or
b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
If it was b. then it's obvious that Rockstar Bidco. didn't overpay but instead made an aggressive bid at the end to show Google that there was lots of gas left in the tank and that Google should never have brought a knife to a gun fight... stupid bids and all.
More crap like this and Google will be perceived as Apple has always been perceived in the investment community... a company with a funny name run by a bunch of punks in a garage. Borrowing from Winston Churchill (concerning Apple)... "some punk... some garage"...
The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.
a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder
or
b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
...
b. a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
Increasingly that doesn't look like irony
No, it looks like sarcasm.
Don't bother trying... Cloudgazer views Google as the all seeing all knowing omniscient being who completely dazzled Apple and all the others with their otherworldly mathematical bids... stunning the rest of the pack with their brilliance so much that Apple, Microsoft and the other members of Rockstar could do nothing but blindly obey and overbid.
On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.
Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)
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.
That would still be wrong. You're constantly making the assumption that Google and its group are smarter, and know more than the competition. It's just as likely to be the opposite.
Erm, I think you're misreading what that meant, or perhaps I'm misreading what you mean. Google asked the auctioneer to be allowed to increase the increments, ie. if bidding had been going up in 200mils, they asked the auctioneer to switch it to 500mils. That doesn't imply that Google felt there was an unexpected amount of money needed - in fact it may have meant that they felt that the price would go far higher than the Auctioneer expected, or they may have been attempting to send a signal of determination, or bluffing, or double bluffing. etc.
That's not clear. I don't know why they would need to ask the auctioneer, unless the quads tee they gave in the beginning was too small, and they were asking to raise it. If so, and it seems likely, then it's what I said. I doubt the bidding was moving to 500 mil per bid. We're reading that it was $100 mil per bid, which seems reasonable. Besides, if they were asking that, then they couldn't have bid those odd amounts.
And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?
Surely no, that's not clear. They aren't playing tiddlywinks here. They're bidding billions of dollars. What would have happened if Google bid much more than they originally wanted (which looks to be the case anyway), and won? You don't bluff at these things. I've been to enough auctions in addition to buying hundreds of things on eBay to know that. It's also against the rules. Besides, their competitors had much more money than they did, it wouldn't have mattered if Apple did pay a couple of hundred of million more.
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.
The more certain Apple is to continue to bid the greater the motivation for Google to bid greater than it's own perceived value.
Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first? If Google was seeking to maximize value to itself and minimize value to Apple it didn't stop because it was reaching its own limit, it stopped because it felt it was nearing the point where Apple would let it win.
You're playing a real guessing game here.
Wait - you also said in a different post that
I would contend that you were wrong on both counts, neither Apple nor Google needed to win at all costs, this wasn't like a mobile spectrum auction when losing means you essentially pack up and quit the business.
The patents have an estimated value to both Apple and Google, and that value is most likely different. But neither need them, or the price would have been much much higher.
I don't see how those two statements contradict each other. Actually, they're complementary.
No one is talking about "at all costs". And of course they all needed them to a certain extent, or there would have been much lower bidding. You're ignoring the reality here. The bids for this ended up being three times the estimates, as has been stated by those setting this up, and others. It's also been stated by those in the patent industry that this was the most expensive patent auction ever.
Obviously, this was considered to be very important to all of these companies.
But as I've continuously stated, which you seem to be ignoring, Apple will be making vastly more on the products which will rely on these than Google will ever have the hope to be making, so they are worth far more to Apple, though it is very possible that Apple got them for less than Google itself bid.
That would be ironic!
Increasingly that doesn't look like irony
It wasn't irony, it was sarcasm.
The strangest thing that happened at the auction was not the mathematical bids, but instead, it was the large bidding gap at the end. The auction was moving up at $100 million a clip until Google put in its last bid of $4 billion... then Rockstar Bidco put in a bid of $4.5 billion.
a. was there an aggressive mystery bidder
or
b. was this a shot across Google's bow to let them know they didn't have a hope in hell of winning
If it was b. then it's obvious that Rockstar Bidco. didn't overpay but instead made an aggressive bid at the end to show Google that there was lots of gas left in the tank and that Google should never have brought a knife to a gun fight... stupid bids and all.
More crap like this and Google will be perceived as Apple has always been perceived in the investment community... a company with a funny name run by a bunch of punks in a garage. Borrowing from Winston Churchill (concerning Apple)... "some punk... some garage"...
That's really closer to what happens at auctions. I've done it myself when bidding on rare books. You get to a point where you want to close the bidding down. So if that was what happened, it would make sense.
An auction has minimum bids, which can be upped at any time by those bidding, but never brought down, unless the auctioneer, and there's always someone in charge, which would be the lawyers in whose offices the bidding was taking place, decides that the property wasn't getting enough bids, and so lowers the value of the bids. But that doesn't seem to have happened here.
Once the final grouping was decided, enough money was likely available to let them increase that last bid. Who knows what would have happened if Google's group responded. But they were out of gas.
On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.
Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)
Completely different situation with no parallels to this whatsoever.
On some sort of level(not in the hyperbole you put it as)Cloudgazer could be right.
Google did this back in 2008 to Verizon(Remember that 700Mhz Auction?)
I thought that this was going to be similar to that, but Google made that one bid, and then stopped. The price would have gone up without Google's bid back then, and this time they really wanted those patents.
I really think it would have been better for them to have attempted to join another group instead of acting in opposition. I also don't understand why Intel went with them when the other group was also courting them. They should have seen the likely outcome with both Apple and MS on the same side, having won't the bidding for Novells' patents earlier.