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.
There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.
That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.
Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.
That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.
Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
... and again you are not reading the thread... please explain why Rockstar Bidco was willing to make a $500 million dollar jump if all they had to do was bid another $100 million.
It sounds to me as if you have gone from one theory onto another theory... there seems to be parallels between your arguments and Google's game play at the auction... you don't know what the hell you are doing as you meander all over the place with silly ass statements (bids) while at the same time the other guys are watching your silly ass squirm while they lay on the winning arguments (bids)...
Exactly. This is not good news for the end customer.
Not saying you're wrong but the only place I pay more is with my heating bills and my auto gas bills. Of course it could be said that most things could be even cheaper if companies weren't paying so much for patent rights etc... but of that I'm not sure.
... and again you are not reading the thread... please explain why Rockstar Bidco was willing to make a $500 million dollar jump if all they had to do was bid another $100 million.
Because by that stage the bid increments had been raised. Perhaps they were linked to the size of the current bid, or perhaps linked to Google's request. Clearly the minimum bid increment wasn't 500mil at the start.
I'll stop arguing with you at this point, it's clearly really annoying you and I generally think you're sane so I'll just assume that this is one of those very counter-intuitive things.
Your reaction reminds me of the response every time I try to explain the Monty Hall Problem to a non mathematician.
Because by that stage the bid increments had been raised. Perhaps they were linked to the size of the current bid, or perhaps linked to Google's request. Clearly the minimum bid increment wasn't 500mil at the start.
I'll stop arguing with you at this point, it's clearly really annoying you and I generally think you're sane so I'll just assume that this is one of those very counter-intuitive things.
Your reaction reminds me of the response every time I try to explain the Monty Hall Problem to a non mathematician.
Now I know you aren't on this planet...
Let me repeat... The bid was in $100 million increments up until Google's final bid of $4 billion. If at that point Google asked for bid increments of $500 million and then did not submit another bid above Rockstar Bidco.'s $4.5 billion bid... don't you think that would have been investigated... we're dealing with Apple and Microsoft here... the bullshit those two companies have been through in the last 25 years makes Google look like it's still in pre-school. Are you saying that Google has smarter lawyers than Apple and MS... and that Apple and MS wouldn't have contested any raised bid limits.
I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.
You're right... you should stop here. You're losing touch with reality.
[... and I don't seem to be the only one who thinks your theories are bunk.]
Let me repeat... The bid was in $100 million increments up until Google's final bid of $4 billion. If at that point Google asked for bid increments of $500 million and then did not submit another bid above Rockstar Bidco.'s $4.5 billion bid... don't you think that would have been investigated... we're dealing with Apple and Microsoft here... the bullshit those two companies have been through in the last 25 years makes Google look like it's still in pre-school. Are you saying that Google has smarter lawyers than Apple and MS... and that Apple and MS wouldn't have contested any raised bid limits.
I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.
You're right... you should stop here. You're losing touch with reality.
[... and I don't seem to be the only one who thinks your theories are bunk.]
within 5 to 7 yrs apple patents bought from Nortel are free.
Apple got 2bn to start and another 600 million in pre royalty payments . and royalty payment going forward should zero out all Apple expences here.
So apple did tie up a couple of billion cash but in the end they WILL own all these goodies for free .
within 5 to 7 yrs apple patents bought from Nortel are free.
Apple got 2bn to start and another 600 million in pre royalty payments . and royalty payment going forward should zero out all Apple expences here.
So apple did tie up a couple of billion cash but in the end they WILL own all these goodies for free .
google sadly to say is clueless in so many ways
9
If Google had used their silly ass bids and then won in the end then I would say that they should strut like a rooster and crow to the world.
As it is it looks like Google may have come off just looking silly. (... and I'm wondering if this will do damage to Google's reputation in the long run.)
I think it's great that Microsoft put their weight behind Rockstar Bidco's bid even though they already have rights to most of Nortel's LTE patent trove. I guess they just wanted to ensure that Google was left out int the cold.
There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.
That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.
Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.
Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.
Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
Actually, I think they should have let the 4 guys from Storage Wars represent each group and have the auction down at one of the storage lockers.
Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.
Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
Does your company have a single competitor in its market and exist in an essentially zero sum context? ie. are you motivated to help them fail at least in this market? I'm guessing not, since that's really quite uncommon.
No, I'm just accepting that my powers as an educator are insufficient to this task.
What you're trying to "teach" is roughly equivalent to teaching creationism -- i.e., a "just so" story that simply isn't supported by any facts and ignores those that contradict it.
Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first?
Sorry CG. You have an interesting perspective on every situation, which is cool. But you're off on this one. This simply is nothing like the Monty Hall problem.
Sorry CG. You have an interesting perspective on every situation, which is cool. But you're off on this one. This simply is nothing like the Monty Hall problem.
Not directly no, the Monty Hall problem plays directly on people's innate understanding of probability which turns out to be terrifyingly wrong. I'm coming to the conclusion that people have a similar blindness about this feeling of who has 'won' or 'lost' in complex situations.
In this case I think people have a deep connection between winning the Patents and winning the greater game, rather like the way that many people automatically assume that Apple lost the game in their legal fight with Nokia because it ended with them paying money.
... In this case I think people have a deep connection between winning the Patents and winning the greater game, ...
in this case, I think you have some delusion that Google is so clever that there must have been some greater game they were playing. There wasn't. They simply lost the only game that was being played.
Nah I think Google was just trying to be smartasses, they probably think they're still hip, irreverent, saving the world, doing things for "love" and goodness, and who knows what other delusions.
Do you snipe on eBay? Last time I was active was a few years ago and unless you had some specific price points in mind sniping seemed to be what most people do. Have they also clamped down on some auto-snipe type of software?
But I do think bankruptcy is one of the tools of capitalism that do work, in allowing assets to be distributed, and letting unviable businesses die. Of course, all this "too big to fail" nonsense (ie. bailout sprees) around the world is screwing this basic principle up. In fact, long before the "credit crunch", more than once before outright bankruptcy, the Canadian government was accused of trying to "bailout" Nortel.
Arc reactor. I went go-karting today, and I was just amazed that you are sitting right next to a fairly small "propulsion device" in which you just pour some "magical fluid" into it from time to time, and you get to cruise around at some speed. And it doesn't explode on any regular basis, which is surprising because that's how it works, little explosions. Thoroughly fascinating. Yes, just a simple tiny combustion engine giving you that raw power. I wonder if 100 years from now we'll all have "arc-reactor" kind of things powering everything. Along with solar, which should finally be able to give all the free long-term energy we need. But people will probably still be stupidly reproducing in unsustainable numbers, defeating the point of all this improvement in energy technology. But I, obviously, digress...
Yeah well the next time you're enjoying that Go-Kart ride, just remember the woman who got scalped in my town a little while ago. She was riding along and her hair got caught in the engine, which proceeded to rip out the scalp that held it in place. This happened years ago, and every time I re-think the events it makes me literally cringe.
Here's a link to the story with a bonus picture of the woman after having her scalp put back on:
Yeah well the next time you're enjoying that Go-Kart ride, just remember the woman who got scalped in my town a little while ago. She was riding along and her hair got caught in the engine, which proceeded to rip out the scalp that held it in place.
For some reason that reminds me of the Incredibles. No Capes!
Comments
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.
There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.
That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.
Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.
That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.
Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
... and again you are not reading the thread... please explain why Rockstar Bidco was willing to make a $500 million dollar jump if all they had to do was bid another $100 million.
It sounds to me as if you have gone from one theory onto another theory... there seems to be parallels between your arguments and Google's game play at the auction... you don't know what the hell you are doing as you meander all over the place with silly ass statements (bids) while at the same time the other guys are watching your silly ass squirm while they lay on the winning arguments (bids)...
Stupid money means more money has to be paid by stupid people.
That of course being us the public.
It is bad news that patents are becoming 'family silver' to be sold off to the highest bidder.
Exactly. This is not good news for the end customer.
Exactly. This is not good news for the end customer.
Not saying you're wrong but the only place I pay more is with my heating bills and my auto gas bills. Of course it could be said that most things could be even cheaper if companies weren't paying so much for patent rights etc... but of that I'm not sure.
... and again you are not reading the thread... please explain why Rockstar Bidco was willing to make a $500 million dollar jump if all they had to do was bid another $100 million.
Because by that stage the bid increments had been raised. Perhaps they were linked to the size of the current bid, or perhaps linked to Google's request. Clearly the minimum bid increment wasn't 500mil at the start.
I'll stop arguing with you at this point, it's clearly really annoying you and I generally think you're sane so I'll just assume that this is one of those very counter-intuitive things.
Your reaction reminds me of the response every time I try to explain the Monty Hall Problem to a non mathematician.
Because by that stage the bid increments had been raised. Perhaps they were linked to the size of the current bid, or perhaps linked to Google's request. Clearly the minimum bid increment wasn't 500mil at the start.
I'll stop arguing with you at this point, it's clearly really annoying you and I generally think you're sane so I'll just assume that this is one of those very counter-intuitive things.
Your reaction reminds me of the response every time I try to explain the Monty Hall Problem to a non mathematician.
Now I know you aren't on this planet...
Let me repeat... The bid was in $100 million increments up until Google's final bid of $4 billion. If at that point Google asked for bid increments of $500 million and then did not submit another bid above Rockstar Bidco.'s $4.5 billion bid... don't you think that would have been investigated... we're dealing with Apple and Microsoft here... the bullshit those two companies have been through in the last 25 years makes Google look like it's still in pre-school. Are you saying that Google has smarter lawyers than Apple and MS... and that Apple and MS wouldn't have contested any raised bid limits.
I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.
You're right... you should stop here. You're losing touch with reality.
[... and I don't seem to be the only one who thinks your theories are bunk.]
Now I know you aren't on this planet...
Let me repeat... The bid was in $100 million increments up until Google's final bid of $4 billion. If at that point Google asked for bid increments of $500 million and then did not submit another bid above Rockstar Bidco.'s $4.5 billion bid... don't you think that would have been investigated... we're dealing with Apple and Microsoft here... the bullshit those two companies have been through in the last 25 years makes Google look like it's still in pre-school. Are you saying that Google has smarter lawyers than Apple and MS... and that Apple and MS wouldn't have contested any raised bid limits.
I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.
You're right... you should stop here. You're losing touch with reality.
[... and I don't seem to be the only one who thinks your theories are bunk.]
within 5 to 7 yrs apple patents bought from Nortel are free.
Apple got 2bn to start and another 600 million in pre royalty payments . and royalty payment going forward should zero out all Apple expences here.
So apple did tie up a couple of billion cash but in the end they WILL own all these goodies for free .
google sadly to say is clueless in so many ways
9
within 5 to 7 yrs apple patents bought from Nortel are free.
Apple got 2bn to start and another 600 million in pre royalty payments . and royalty payment going forward should zero out all Apple expences here.
So apple did tie up a couple of billion cash but in the end they WILL own all these goodies for free .
google sadly to say is clueless in so many ways
9
If Google had used their silly ass bids and then won in the end then I would say that they should strut like a rooster and crow to the world.
As it is it looks like Google may have come off just looking silly. (... and I'm wondering if this will do damage to Google's reputation in the long run.)
I think it's great that Microsoft put their weight behind Rockstar Bidco's bid even though they already have rights to most of Nortel's LTE patent trove. I guess they just wanted to ensure that Google was left out int the cold.
There's a fundamental difference between two people bidding on a book over ebay and two competitors bidding on an asset. In the former case you have zero interest in increasing what your opponent bids - your entire interest is minimizing your own winning bid.
That's not true in the other case. It's in Google's interest for Apple to pay more, much as it's in Apple's interest for Android OEMs to have to pay license fees to MS, Nokia etc.
Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose.
Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.
Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.
Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
Actually, I think they should have let the 4 guys from Storage Wars represent each group and have the auction down at one of the storage lockers.
Oh please, I've done bidding on behalf of my own company. When have you ever taken part in any of this? It doesn't appear to me that you have, because you don't seem to understand what the thinking is.
Yes, in commercial bidding for assets, bidders do whatever they think they have to to get those assets, once they have determined the value to themselves. And even large corporations bid more than they originally intended to if they think that they can get what they want for just a bit more. This seemed to be what Google was attempting, but failed.
Does your company have a single competitor in its market and exist in an essentially zero sum context? ie. are you motivated to help them fail at least in this market? I'm guessing not, since that's really quite uncommon.
I see a lot of "perhaps" in your response. Finally... you're admitting you don't have a clue.
No, I'm just accepting that my powers as an educator are insufficient to this task.
No, I'm just accepting that my powers as an educator are insufficient to this task.
What you're trying to "teach" is roughly equivalent to teaching creationism -- i.e., a "just so" story that simply isn't supported by any facts and ignores those that contradict it.
Seriously is this one of those things like the Monty Hall problem that is really difficult to understand at first?
Sorry CG. You have an interesting perspective on every situation, which is cool. But you're off on this one. This simply is nothing like the Monty Hall problem.
Sorry CG. You have an interesting perspective on every situation, which is cool. But you're off on this one. This simply is nothing like the Monty Hall problem.
Not directly no, the Monty Hall problem plays directly on people's innate understanding of probability which turns out to be terrifyingly wrong. I'm coming to the conclusion that people have a similar blindness about this feeling of who has 'won' or 'lost' in complex situations.
In this case I think people have a deep connection between winning the Patents and winning the greater game, rather like the way that many people automatically assume that Apple lost the game in their legal fight with Nokia because it ended with them paying money.
... In this case I think people have a deep connection between winning the Patents and winning the greater game, ...
in this case, I think you have some delusion that Google is so clever that there must have been some greater game they were playing. There wasn't. They simply lost the only game that was being played.
Nah I think Google was just trying to be smartasses, they probably think they're still hip, irreverent, saving the world, doing things for "love" and goodness, and who knows what other delusions.
Do you snipe on eBay? Last time I was active was a few years ago and unless you had some specific price points in mind sniping seemed to be what most people do. Have they also clamped down on some auto-snipe type of software?
As for Nortel, they are in deep poo. At least "14 billion". It's quite confusing actually, from the sound of things: https://www.fis.dowjones.com/WebBlog...jblog&s=djfdbr
But I do think bankruptcy is one of the tools of capitalism that do work, in allowing assets to be distributed, and letting unviable businesses die. Of course, all this "too big to fail" nonsense (ie. bailout sprees) around the world is screwing this basic principle up. In fact, long before the "credit crunch", more than once before outright bankruptcy, the Canadian government was accused of trying to "bailout" Nortel.
Arc reactor. I went go-karting today, and I was just amazed that you are sitting right next to a fairly small "propulsion device" in which you just pour some "magical fluid" into it from time to time, and you get to cruise around at some speed. And it doesn't explode on any regular basis, which is surprising because that's how it works, little explosions. Thoroughly fascinating. Yes, just a simple tiny combustion engine giving you that raw power. I wonder if 100 years from now we'll all have "arc-reactor" kind of things powering everything. Along with solar, which should finally be able to give all the free long-term energy we need. But people will probably still be stupidly reproducing in unsustainable numbers, defeating the point of all this improvement in energy technology. But I, obviously, digress...
Yeah well the next time you're enjoying that Go-Kart ride, just remember the woman who got scalped in my town a little while ago. She was riding along and her hair got caught in the engine, which proceeded to rip out the scalp that held it in place. This happened years ago, and every time I re-think the events it makes me literally cringe.
Here's a link to the story with a bonus picture of the woman after having her scalp put back on:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2835487
Yeah well the next time you're enjoying that Go-Kart ride, just remember the woman who got scalped in my town a little while ago. She was riding along and her hair got caught in the engine, which proceeded to rip out the scalp that held it in place.
For some reason that reminds me of the Incredibles. No Capes!