Meh...I would guess most of the LTE/4G patents are likely required to be available via FRAND. Licensing of these are not likely to be game changing for Android.
The remainder, however, are meant to be used as offensive weapons. Had they not been then RPX would have found a partner in either Ranger or Rockstar. So even GOOG didn't view them as strictly defensive patents regardless of their public statements.
FRAND is not an automatic payment machine. Usually, the companies with the patents declare FRAND themselves, to force others to pay up. Sometimes, as with Apple now, they've got some patents that others desperately want to license, and that a company doesn't want to license, so those others attempt to declare FRAND, but it doesn't always work. I know of a lot of patents over the decades in various industries that were considered to be indispensable, but weren't licensed by the holders. In fact most patents are considered to be indispensable, but aren't licensed.
A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later you add up to some real money. The idea that Apple doesn't care about overpaying by a few hundred million is ridiculous, they do. The patents were by your analysis worth 4 billion to Ranger, do you think Google can't afford to lose a few more hundred million on top? Of course they can, they just don't want to. Can't you see how bizarre your worldview is here? You are essentially saying that it completely wouldn't matter if Apple overpayed by 500mil but it would be terrible if Google overpaid by 500mil? Really?
The error you keep making is in assuming that Apple would be overpaying. You don't know what this is worth to Apple or anyone else. It could be that it was worth much more to Google as well, but that they decided they couldn't afford it. It could be that Apple, who only paid $2 billion could have gone to $4 billion, or more. You don't know, so you should just stop talking about overpaying, because that's just your assumption.
You talk about worldview, but yours is from Mars. You have no logic to what you're stating. You're making up things from what you want to believe, and taking it from there. You are ignoring all the realities.
You keep insisting that only Google knows how much these patents are worth. It's just as likely that they have no idea as to how much they are worth. I'm not saying how much they were worth to Ranger, only that that was all they could spend. Other than that, we know nothing, but you seem to be insisting that you do.
You keep insisting that anything over Google's bid is over paying. why is that? Why do you assume that Google is so smart that only they know what they're doing? I happen to think that Google has been very stupid in all of this. I also believe that they are very worried about Android, and that they're trying to hedge their bets by backing this silly Chromebook initiative.
Google is a very strange company, and you can't trust what they say. Now, they're talking about how sad this whole thing is after losing. They are also making statements, at least Schmitt is, about how bad this is for open software and how these other companies aren't innovating, just relying on their IP, unlike Google, which by the way, he states will be looking for more IP. How convoluted and hypocritical is that?
He's basically stating that Google is using others innovations and IP in their products, and that therefor Google is innovative, even though it's the others who have done the inventing that Google is using, and oh, by the way, we're still looking for IP to buy, you know, just like those others they're whining about. I mean, really, give me a break!
Quote:
Suppose Apple believe that there is no possibility that Google will overbid, as you apparently do. Apple also believe that the patents must be more valuable to Apple than they are to Google, as you also do. Therefore Apple must always outbid Google, which you have said is an unreasonable assumption. Something here clearly isn't right, and it's the assumption that you should never overbid.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid. I also never said that they would. At least, not intentionally. This is what YOU are saying. You've been stating that from the beginning. You keep saying that Google could have bid higher than they wanted to pay in order to get Apple to pay more. I'm not stating anything of the kind.
I'm just attempting to respond to you obviously fallacious arguments where you state that.
You have an amazing ability to take what others say, and twist it around so that it bears no relation to it, and to then build up an argument that therefor has nothing to do with what that other said, but that somehow seems to support your own odd argument, which it wouldn't if you didn't misinterpret the original statement the other said, in these cases, me.
Quote:
Game theory is full of cases where you must be willing to occasionally run an outsized risk in order to maximize your overall chances. The classic example is 'fighters & bombers'. Even though attacking from the sun is the safest approach for the fighter, if fighters ALWAYS do it they reduce their overall survival rate below optimal- sometimes you must attack from the risky direction in order to maximize safety.
Another less formal example is Poker, bluffing is clearly risky, but never bluffing is unlikely to be optimal. Bluffing allows you to potentially win with a bad hand, a double bluff allows you to potentially win more than otherwise with a good hand. A player who never ever bluffs is entirely predictable. A player who never bluffs and doesn't believe that any other player ever bluffs because they think bluffing is illogical is somebody I'd like to play against.
SImilarly overbidding may allow you to 'win' in an auction where the asset has relatively low value to you by making your competitor overpay, the equivalent of a double bluff may allow you to 'win' an auction by acquiring the asset for less than its worth to you, by convincing your competitor you are overbidding. I'm scarequoting 'win' here to indicate I'm talking about winning the game, not just winning the asset.
I can go looking around the web and come up with links too. But you have to understand the situation, which you clearly do not. You can state game theory all you want to, but it's easy to see that your use of it is superficial. Game theory is very interesting in a general sense, but each individual case is different, and unique.
In any case, it comes down to several things. How much is this worth to us? How much can we afford? How much is it worth to keep out of the hands of a hostile competitor, etc. In the heat of an actual auction, these questions are much more important than theoretical musings.
You look to future sales, and how they could be impacted several ways. Yu look to future profits and how they can be impacted several ways. You look to what this means in terms of marketshare, and how that impacts sales and profits. It's a balancing act, and something arch company must do on it's own. That's why each company paid differing amounts, and for differing parts of the portfolio, as well as to access to other parts.
Quote:
Which is exactly why I originally said zero-sum context, and not zero sum-game. Ok, to make you happy let me put it more precisely. I am stipulating that Google's score and Apple's score are inversely related. You are apparently assuming that the underbidder's score is zero and the asset winner's is Bid-Value, though Value of course may only be known in hindsight.
There is no such thing as zero sum context. Either it is or it isn't. Here, one side won, and the other lost. There is no zero sum anything. There is no current way to evaluate it. It will take years.
Quote:
As to MS, it's really unclear what is going to happen. Are they content to become a patent troll under the smartphone bridge? Will they keep pushing WP7? If it fails will they push Windows 8? Are consumers interested at all? There seems a shocking lack of interest in both WP7 and WebOS from consumers. I guess we'll find out if WP7 has any legs at all when Nokia starts to kick out models.
Posters love to call every company that has IP, and attempts to get paid for it, a patent troll, but that's just silly. There are hundreds of thousands of patents, if not millions, that are licensed out. Is IBM a patent troll because they receive billions every year in patent fees? Of course not! Neither are most of the other thousands of companies and individuals who invent something, and are getting fees for it.
So is MS a patent troll? Not really. They've invented much themselves, And buying more patents doesn't make them trolls. If someone invents something, no one else has the right to take it and use it without paying for it, assuming that the invention is valid, which most, but not all are.
If I invent something, and patent it, but can't get the money to make it, and can't convince other companies to do so, and then find that someone Is making it without coming to me for a license, and I sue, am I a patent troll? Of course not! But this happens all the time. And often, companies invent many things in the course of their R&D, but decide that they don't need them now. Does that mean that another company should can steal that IP for themselves? Again, of course not.
Quote:
As to Samsung and WebOS, I don't think that would be a defensive play regarding MS. The logical defensive play there would be to jump to WP7, which is what MS is no doubt angling for, and probably offering reduced license terms for OEMs that do. WebOS seems more likely a poke on Google's nose to try to get them to partner more closely with Samsung. As I understand it, each Android revision gets launched on an exclusive with a partner, and these deals are extremely lucrative in both cash and marketshare.
I knew that wouldn't think so, but your response makes even less sense. Dealing with HP could be a counterweight to both MS, Google, and of course, Apple. We also don't know what HP might be asking for fees. I suspect, though of course it's just my take, that HP would be asking for less than MS is demanding. Hp announced some time ago that WebOS would be offered for licensing, and people laughed, think that no one would be interested, because of its tiny take-up. But perhaps they were wrong.
As for Samsung dealing with MS to make WP7 phones, and so getting a better deal than the $15 MS is demanding, well... Samsung ALREADY makes WP7 phones, for your information, and still, they're being smacked down by MS.
By that reasoning, would you say that if Google had bid $5B and Rockstar then bowed out, that Google had won spectacularly? Or would you then have said Apple forced them to spectacularly overpay? I'm pretty sure I already know what answer you would have given.
There was a whole bunch of smart guys involved on all sides with a lot more information on what those patents might actually give them, as well as what other business interests and decisions had already been made. Compare that to a few guys in a forum making uneducated guesses this early after the game making factual statements on who won or lost?
No members judgement of the results is any more valid than anyone else's IMHO. It may well be years, if ever, before hindsight reveals if Apple/Rockstar wildly overpaid, stole the auction, or just simply got a reasonable return for the investment.
We now have information supplied by the Canadian court documents on this that the Canadian government is using in its review. This give us a much more detailed view of what went on. The article give us some of the highlights:
Anyone not taking google seriously is an idiot...I don't care if they are bidding mathematical constants or not. Google isn't always successful but they are very sharp competitors with very good top management.
Apple won this round for sure but you guys are petty fans even in victory by taking one very minor aspect and blowing it up to be some huge indicator of Google competence.
And I think that you might be assuming too much about Google's competence here. We can look at several companies in severe decline, that just a few years ago were thought to be extremely well led, but proved not to be. Motorola, Nokia, and RIM are but a few that had their time in the sun, but are now in a state of decline. These things play out over years, so we don't always know when it started until afterwards.
I'm not saying that this is the case for Google now, but neither can you state that it isn't. If somehow, Android loses it's growing dominance, and that can be traced back to their failure to obtain these patents, then it will be said that management didn't understand their importance, and what was happening around them. If Android continues its rise for years to come, the it will be seen differently, but right now, Google's attitude is puzzling. They've been making very confusing statements and moves.
No, my agenda is to try to get it through to people who should be intelligent enough to understand it that their analysis is grossly oversimplified. I have no idea who 'won' the auction, moreover unlike you I am happy to admit it.
You are the ones with certainty that lacks evidence, I'm the one presenting the case that this issue is nuanced.
I'm sure that the winners and losers in this auction very clearly know who they are. And Schmitt made a statement which you should have read, as it was on all the news and tech sites, about how unfortunate the situation about the result was, and how they were going to look for more IP to buy.
That doesn't read like someone who feels they won. It's definitely the story from a loser.
The error you keep making is in assuming that Apple would be overpaying.
Go find where I said that and quote it, I never once said that Apple has definitely overpaid. You are assuming I'm assuming this.
Quote:
It could be that it was worth much more to Google as well, but that they decided they couldn't afford it.
Well that's clearly not true. We know that Google has the cash to pay more than 4billion, if the Patents were worth more than 5billion to Google then they would have had an expected profit by bidding higher. Google is a huge cash machine with no significant liabilities.
Quote:
You keep insisting that only Google knows how much these patents are worth.
Quote where I keep insisting this? I've said several times, Google has an estimate of their worth to Google and an estimate of their worth to Apple, Apple has its own estimates. Nobody knows the value. But that's the second time you've accused me of stating something that I didn'tr state. Please quote where I stated that only google knew the value, otherwise drop this ridiculous line.
Quote:
You keep insisting that anything over Google's bid is over paying. why is that?
No, I simply say that if Google overbid then they have caused Apple to pay more than the value of the patents to Google. In that instance Google has reduced the net present value of the asset to Apple, even if it hasn't pushed it negative.
That is all I'm saying. Not that Google are clairvoyant, or omniscient, or any of the ridiculous things you keep saying.
Next time you think I'm saying something ridiculous QUOTE WHERE I SAY IT.
Quote:
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid.
Yes you did, and I'll quote it, you said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
And what if Google was wrong, and ended up paying hundreds of millions more themselves? It would have backfired if they didn't think that price was worth it. I think we can safely put that argument to rest.
How do you parse that other than it is you saying that we can dismiss the possibility that Google would intentionally overbid? Or how about
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
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.
Sorry but unlike you, I'm not ascribing any opinion to you other than the ones that you clearly state.
Quote:
You have an amazing ability to take what others say, and twist it around so that it bears no relation to it
You are projecting.
So let's get this clear. I've said numerous times that Google might have chosen to overbid, and I have been roundly criticized for saying it. You are now claiming that you agree that they might have overbid? Or are you still saying that they definitively didn't overbid after just claiming that you didn't say it?
I think we need to get this clear because at this point, in addition to completely misrepresenting what I'm saying, you seem also to be completely misrepresenting what you're saying.
Go find where I said that and quote it, I never once said that Apple has definitely overpaid. You are assuming I'm assuming this.
I'll give some of it, but reading through almost 300 posts to find every quote is a bit much to ask.
"Solipsism is absolutely right when he said that part of the point for Google is to make competitors overpay."
"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."
"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."
"And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?"
"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. "
"Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose."
I'll stop here. We can see the trend in your thinking, even if you can not. By putting the word"definitively" into the sentence, you think you can avoid all that you've said, but you can't.
Quote:
Well that's clearly not true. We know that Google has the cash to pay more than 4billion, if the Patents were worth more than 5billion to Google then they would have had an expected profit by bidding higher. Google is a huge cash machine with no significant liabilities.
Having the cash doesn't mean that you think you can spend more than a certain part of it. Do we know Google's plans for that cash? No, we don't. So it's very possible that they didn't think they could afford something they felt that they needed.
Quote:
Quote where I keep insisting this? I've said several times, Google has an estimate of their worth to Google and an estimate of their worth to Apple, Apple has its own estimates. Nobody knows the value. But that's the second time you've accused me of stating something that I didn'tr state. Please quote where I stated that only google knew the value, otherwise drop this ridiculous line.
Ok, you did state that, but then gave it up, as in a clip from one of your posts above.
Quote:
No, I simply say that if Google overbid then they have caused Apple to pay more than the value of the patents to Google. In that instance Google has reduced the net present value of the asset to Apple, even if it hasn't pushed it negative.
From the quotes above, you were saying that.
Quote:
Next time you think I'm saying something ridiculous QUOTE WHERE I SAY IT.
I have, a number of times.
Quote:
Yes you did, and I'll quote it, you said.
I'll put your quote of what I said in here so we can all see it in context:
"Quote:
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid."
And then:
"Quote:
And what if Google was wrong, and ended up paying hundreds of millions more themselves? It would have backfired if they didn't think that price was worth it. I think we can safely put that argument to rest."
And where in those two quotes you posted did I say that Google wouldn't overbid? What I said that they wouldn't intentionally attempt to get Apple to overpay. I've said in other posts that Google could overbid, but not for that purpose, perhaps in error.
Quote:
How do you parse that other than it is you saying that we can dismiss the possibility that Google would intentionally overbid? Or how about
Sorry but unlike you, I'm not ascribing any opinion to you other than the ones that you clearly state.
Wow! You try to take a response to your assertion that Google probably overbid to cause Apple to pay more, where I'm asking what would have happened if that happened, as my saying it happened, or didn't happen? I'm not saying either thing. I'm questioning what would have happened, which is why I wrote all of those comments as questions?
[quote
You are projecting.
I'm simply stating what you're doing.
Quote:
So let's get this clear. I've said numerous times that Google might have chosen to overbid, and I have been roundly criticized for saying it. You are now claiming that you agree that they might have overbid? Or are you still saying that they definitively didn't overbid after just claiming that you didn't say it?
I think we need to get this clear because at this point, in addition to completely misrepresenting what I'm saying, you seem also to be completely misrepresenting what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that I think it's unlikely that Google would have raised their bid above what they were willing to pay. This is what I've always said. Is that definite? Of course not. We can't get into their heads. But it's unlikely they would have done that. We both agree that it's dangerous, because it might not work.
I've quoted you a number of times, so it can be seen by others, even if you don't agree, that what I and others have been ascribing to you is correct, no matter how much you may deny it.
The auction finale may not be the end of the story. Are antitrust folk looking into why three of the largest mobile players are permitted to collude to gang up on the fourth?
I simply asked you a question, rather than stating you said something that you did not. As is becoming all too common, you're avoiding an answer again, something for which you've become known on this forum.
You asked a question that implied I was saying something I wasn't, and which was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Something for which you've become known on this forum.
I just posted several detail paragraphs presenting my case. You presented a strawman. and I'm the guy with no case?
Sorry to break it to you but I have a case, you just don't like it. You on other hand have beliefs, approaching the religious level, which presumably explains your righteous anger that I fail to share them.
No, you posted several detailed paragraphs stating your fantasies based on your unsupported assumptions.
The auction finale may not be the end of the story. Are antitrust folk looking into why three of the largest mobile players are permitted to collude to gang up on the fourth?
Google crying foul clearly shows they think they lost big time. But, since Google were "colluding" with Intel, it's rather disingenuous of them, just like paying you to come here and propagandize for them.
You asked a question that implied I was saying something I wasn't, and which was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Something for which you've become known on this forum.
FRAND is not an automatic payment machine. Usually, the companies with the patents declare FRAND themselves, to force others to pay up. Sometimes, as with Apple now, they've got some patents that others desperately want to license, and that a company doesn't want to license, so those others attempt to declare FRAND, but it doesn't always work. I know of a lot of patents over the decades in various industries that were considered to be indispensable, but weren't licensed by the holders. In fact most patents are considered to be indispensable, but aren't licensed.
I didn't state that FRAND was an "automatic payment machine". Just that patents required by LTE are likely available under FRAND. Why? Because the patents were purchased by a consortium, are core to LTE, probably will be required to be by regulatory bodies as part of the sale and was originally promised by Nortel under FRAND for a 1% fee.
If your patent is indispensable and not licensed then it likely won't get accepted by a standards body since no one but you can use it or the "standard" itself doesn't get widely used since...you guessed it...nobody but you can use it.
And I think that you might be assuming too much about Google's competence here. We can look at several companies in severe decline, that just a few years ago were thought to be extremely well led, but proved not to be. Motorola, Nokia, and RIM are but a few that had their time in the sun, but are now in a state of decline. These things play out over years, so we don't always know when it started until afterwards.
There are zero indications that Google is in any more decline than Apple. If anything Apple is of far greater risk of decline once Jobs retires.
Quote:
I'm not saying that this is the case for Google now, but neither can you state that it isn't.
Right...because both are of equal probability. Not. I sure as hell can state that Google isn't in a state of decline with a MUCH higher level of confidence than any idiotic claim that Google is in decline.
Quote:
If somehow, Android loses it's growing dominance, and that can be traced back to their failure to obtain these patents, then it will be said that management didn't understand their importance, and what was happening around them. If Android continues its rise for years to come, the it will be seen differently, but right now, Google's attitude is puzzling. They've been making very confusing statements and moves.
These patents have a certain strategic value. Google determined this to be $4B. Good management has sufficient willpower not to keep bidding past prudence...even if it is "only" half a billion more. Which it wouldn't have been given that Apple's consortium was far larger than Google's and could have kept bidding past that $4.5B mark without actually individually spending $4B.
I didn't state that FRAND was an "automatic payment machine". Just that patents required by LTE are likely available under FRAND. Why? Because the patents were purchased by a consortium, are core to LTE, probably will be required to be by regulatory bodies as part of the sale and was originally promised by Nortel under FRAND for a 1% fee.
If your patent is indispensable and not licensed then it likely won't get accepted by a standards body since no one but you can use it or the "standard" itself doesn't get widely used since...you guessed it...nobody but you can use it.
Sure. But that assumes that you want it to be accepted by a standards body. In Apple's case, often they want the patents for their own devices. If they have a better way of doing something, that doesn't make it indispensable, though it might make it very desirable.
There are zero indications that Google is in any more decline than Apple. If anything Apple is of far greater risk of decline once Jobs retires.
Right...because both are of equal probability. Not. I sure as hell can state that Google isn't in a state of decline with a MUCH higher level of confidence than any idiotic claim that Google is in decline.
These patents have a certain strategic value. Google determined this to be $4B. Good management has sufficient willpower not to keep bidding past prudence...even if it is "only" half a billion more. Which it wouldn't have been given that Apple's consortium was far larger than Google's and could have kept bidding past that $4.5B mark without actually individually spending $4B.
I'm not saying that Google is in decline. But you're making too many assumptions in regards to them not being so. What happens if the government here and in Europe decide that Google is abusing its position? What happens if Baidu moves out of China, and challenges them throughout Asia? There are a lot of scenarios that could result in Google losing its dominance.
Will that happen? Who knows, but it could. apple could lose too of course, but we're talking about Google.
For those interested in the letter from the American Antitrust Institute stating their concerns with the recent Rockstar Bidco auction win. As far as I can tell they have no undeclared agendas, and have previously voiced concerns with some Google buys. They look fair and non-biased to me.
Now lets remember the story so far. You're trying to prove that you were justified in saying
Quote: "The error you keep making is in assuming that Apple would be overpaying."
and
Quote: "You keep insisting that only Google knows how much these patents are worth."
and
Quote: "You keep insisting that anything over Google's bid is over paying. why is that?"
Let's see how you did, first you quoted a lot of places where I said that Apple might have overpaid, or even said something completely different then you admitted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I'll stop here. We can see the trend in your thinking, even if you can not. By putting the word"definitively" into the sentence, you think you can avoid all that you've said, but you can't.
...
I've quoted you a number of times, so it can be seen by others, even if you don't agree, that what I and others have been ascribing to you is correct, no matter how much you may deny it.
Let me get this right because I'd like to be clear. You know what I'm thinking but I don't? If I repeatedly say that I think that Google probably, possibly or maybe intentionally overbid in order to make Apple pay more than they otherwise would have - you think that means that I assume that Apple overbid? When I said '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.' - I meant that Apple overbid somehow without even mentioning them? If I say that in some circumstance X that Apple overbid that means that I assume Apple overbid?
Do you really want to stick to that? Wouldn't it be better to just accept that you grossly misquoted me because you kept reading what you thought I was saying and not what I was actually saying?
Let's go on to the second point. Even though I apparently 'keep insisting' that Google has perfect knowledge you in fact could only find one place where I'd stated it, accidentally and subsequently corrected my statement precisely to avoid being so misconstrued.
Perhaps you aren't a native english speaker, but the word 'keep' in this context connotes repetition, and the word 'insisting' is rather defeated if I withdrew a statement as a typo immediately afterwards. If you think that a single typo allows you to tell somebody that they 'keep insisting' something then I'm no longer surprised that you think that repeated expressions of uncertainty equal certainty.
You don't even attempt to find quotes to back up your third ridiculous statement.
Now let's see your claims that I'm being unfair and putting words into your mouth, this time with a bit more of the context than you included - my additions in bold.
Quote:
"Quote:
Suppose Apple believe that there is no possibility that Google will overbid, as you apparently do. Apple also believe that the patents must be more valuable to Apple than they are to Google, as you also do. Therefore Apple must always outbid Google, which you have said is an unreasonable assumption. Something here clearly isn't right, and it's the assumption that you should never overbid.
"Quote:
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid. I also never said that they would.
It's plain from the sense of my paragraph that I am talking of the case of Google intentionally overbidding, and that I assume that you believe that Google would never intentionally overbid. That's made quite clear by the last line, 'should' would make no sense in the case of accidental overbids.
Even more tellingly there's that ridiculous claim you make that I keep insisting Google has perfect knowledge of the asset value. Since you believe that I think that, in your view I can't possibly mean that Google would accidentally overbid, since you believe that I think that impossible. Confusing perhaps, but there you are. You according to your own stated beliefs of my opinions couldn't misinterpret my statement, except intentionally.
Now your only wriggle room is closed I'm afraid. If you claim you meant that Google would never intentionally overbid but might accidentally overbid then in the context of my statement, I was correctly stating your view - and at worst you could insist that i insert a redundant 'intentionally' into the statement. The entire argument hangs together just as well with it in there. If you claim that you merely think it unlikely that Google would overbid then the quotes damn you- because you say that we can 'put the argument to rest' that they would do so, and that 'you don't bluff at these things'. Given that if I said 'You generally/probably/mostly/maybe don't bluff' you'd consider that a definite assumption, I think your failure to in anyway hedge allows me to ascribe certainty, don't you?
So why don't you be a man here and accept that you have been putting words into my mouth and I have not been putting words into yours. Then we can get on with disagreeing about the actual matters, which is surely more fun than me continuing to tie you in these knots. You will grow as a person when you learn to admit these errors.
Quote:
What I'm saying is that I think it's unlikely that Google would have raised their bid above what they were willing to pay. This is what I've always said. Is that definite? Of course not. We can't get into their heads. But it's unlikely they would have done that. We both agree that it's dangerous, because it might not work.
Why is it unlikely that they would intentionally overbid? Let's assume for sake of simplicity that the estimates of the value of the patents are G and A to google and apple respectively, and for the sake of simplicity assume they both have the same estimates.
A simple model for the payoff in this game is that Google score (G-B) if they win with a bid of B, or -(A-B) if Apple wins with a bid of A, and Apple scores the opposite - ie. a strict zero-sum game. Let's also assume that A > G. In fact let's make A 4 and G 2. In this simple case google should bid up to 3 to minimize their loss. What if we relax the zero sum restriction? If Google's score is proportional to -Apple's score at all then they should bid more than G, only if google considers its score 0 upon losing the auction does it make sense for them to not intentionally overbid.
And this is in the simplified case where both the parties have the same estimates. As soon as you introduce doubt regarding that the game becomes yet more complicated because true bluffing starts to be relevant.
Not overbidding is in many ways as dangerous as overbidding. The money that your opponent is saving as a result will be spent to buy other assets that will be used against you - it's quite likely that more patent pools will be coming onto the market - especially with RIM and Nokia fading fast, and Moto on their last legs.
Sure. But that assumes that you want it to be accepted by a standards body. In Apple's case, often they want the patents for their own devices. If they have a better way of doing something, that doesn't make it indispensable, though it might make it very desirable.
Which part of LTE is confusing you? Unless you wish to pursue the concept that Apple is about to build it's own competing mobile network standard your counter argument has no merit other than to avoid either dropping the issue gracefully or conceding that my point was correct.
Apple is NOT going to use the LTE specific patents to keep manufacturers from making LTE phones. The result of the patents will make iPhones slightly less to make because the FRAND royalties will probably be set to be more than Nortel's $1/handset...as much as Apple thinks it can get away with without inviting regulatory reaction.
The high purchase price might even help...the patent pool sold for 3 times expectations so it can be argued that Nortel undervalued the patent values at $1/handset and it should be $3/handset. Oh gee, RIM has a license and MS might have enough rights to convey a license under WP7. That also gives a slight edge to the other handset makers in the consortium that make Android phones but AFAIK Samsung, HTC and Moto aren't in that group. Sony and Ericsson are.
Which is pretty much ideal. See, we're not singling out Android, Sony & Sony-Ericsson are part of the consortium making plenty of Android phones and $3/handset to all comers is a fair and non-discriminatory price.
This isn't a game ender for Android but keep chipping away at licensing costs and it helps WP7 immensely. Splitting the markets 30% Android, 20% WP7, 30% iOS, 10% other is a huge strategic win for Apple and a potentially huge strategic loss for Google...all that needs to happen is Bing becoming the default search for iOS and Google just lost a huge gamble by competing with their partners.
This is why this is disappointing for Google but not devastating. There's still a lot of chipping away that needs to be done and Android still has a huge lead on WP7. Personally I like WP7 better but it still needs one more mango sized update.
Comments
Meh...I would guess most of the LTE/4G patents are likely required to be available via FRAND. Licensing of these are not likely to be game changing for Android.
The remainder, however, are meant to be used as offensive weapons. Had they not been then RPX would have found a partner in either Ranger or Rockstar. So even GOOG didn't view them as strictly defensive patents regardless of their public statements.
FRAND is not an automatic payment machine. Usually, the companies with the patents declare FRAND themselves, to force others to pay up. Sometimes, as with Apple now, they've got some patents that others desperately want to license, and that a company doesn't want to license, so those others attempt to declare FRAND, but it doesn't always work. I know of a lot of patents over the decades in various industries that were considered to be indispensable, but weren't licensed by the holders. In fact most patents are considered to be indispensable, but aren't licensed.
A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later you add up to some real money. The idea that Apple doesn't care about overpaying by a few hundred million is ridiculous, they do. The patents were by your analysis worth 4 billion to Ranger, do you think Google can't afford to lose a few more hundred million on top? Of course they can, they just don't want to. Can't you see how bizarre your worldview is here? You are essentially saying that it completely wouldn't matter if Apple overpayed by 500mil but it would be terrible if Google overpaid by 500mil? Really?
The error you keep making is in assuming that Apple would be overpaying. You don't know what this is worth to Apple or anyone else. It could be that it was worth much more to Google as well, but that they decided they couldn't afford it. It could be that Apple, who only paid $2 billion could have gone to $4 billion, or more. You don't know, so you should just stop talking about overpaying, because that's just your assumption.
You talk about worldview, but yours is from Mars. You have no logic to what you're stating. You're making up things from what you want to believe, and taking it from there. You are ignoring all the realities.
You keep insisting that only Google knows how much these patents are worth. It's just as likely that they have no idea as to how much they are worth. I'm not saying how much they were worth to Ranger, only that that was all they could spend. Other than that, we know nothing, but you seem to be insisting that you do.
You keep insisting that anything over Google's bid is over paying. why is that? Why do you assume that Google is so smart that only they know what they're doing? I happen to think that Google has been very stupid in all of this. I also believe that they are very worried about Android, and that they're trying to hedge their bets by backing this silly Chromebook initiative.
Google is a very strange company, and you can't trust what they say. Now, they're talking about how sad this whole thing is after losing. They are also making statements, at least Schmitt is, about how bad this is for open software and how these other companies aren't innovating, just relying on their IP, unlike Google, which by the way, he states will be looking for more IP. How convoluted and hypocritical is that?
He's basically stating that Google is using others innovations and IP in their products, and that therefor Google is innovative, even though it's the others who have done the inventing that Google is using, and oh, by the way, we're still looking for IP to buy, you know, just like those others they're whining about. I mean, really, give me a break!
Suppose Apple believe that there is no possibility that Google will overbid, as you apparently do. Apple also believe that the patents must be more valuable to Apple than they are to Google, as you also do. Therefore Apple must always outbid Google, which you have said is an unreasonable assumption. Something here clearly isn't right, and it's the assumption that you should never overbid.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid. I also never said that they would. At least, not intentionally. This is what YOU are saying. You've been stating that from the beginning. You keep saying that Google could have bid higher than they wanted to pay in order to get Apple to pay more. I'm not stating anything of the kind.
I'm just attempting to respond to you obviously fallacious arguments where you state that.
You have an amazing ability to take what others say, and twist it around so that it bears no relation to it, and to then build up an argument that therefor has nothing to do with what that other said, but that somehow seems to support your own odd argument, which it wouldn't if you didn't misinterpret the original statement the other said, in these cases, me.
Game theory is full of cases where you must be willing to occasionally run an outsized risk in order to maximize your overall chances. The classic example is 'fighters & bombers'. Even though attacking from the sun is the safest approach for the fighter, if fighters ALWAYS do it they reduce their overall survival rate below optimal- sometimes you must attack from the risky direction in order to maximize safety.
Another less formal example is Poker, bluffing is clearly risky, but never bluffing is unlikely to be optimal. Bluffing allows you to potentially win with a bad hand, a double bluff allows you to potentially win more than otherwise with a good hand. A player who never ever bluffs is entirely predictable. A player who never bluffs and doesn't believe that any other player ever bluffs because they think bluffing is illogical is somebody I'd like to play against.
SImilarly overbidding may allow you to 'win' in an auction where the asset has relatively low value to you by making your competitor overpay, the equivalent of a double bluff may allow you to 'win' an auction by acquiring the asset for less than its worth to you, by convincing your competitor you are overbidding. I'm scarequoting 'win' here to indicate I'm talking about winning the game, not just winning the asset.
I can go looking around the web and come up with links too. But you have to understand the situation, which you clearly do not. You can state game theory all you want to, but it's easy to see that your use of it is superficial. Game theory is very interesting in a general sense, but each individual case is different, and unique.
In any case, it comes down to several things. How much is this worth to us? How much can we afford? How much is it worth to keep out of the hands of a hostile competitor, etc. In the heat of an actual auction, these questions are much more important than theoretical musings.
You look to future sales, and how they could be impacted several ways. Yu look to future profits and how they can be impacted several ways. You look to what this means in terms of marketshare, and how that impacts sales and profits. It's a balancing act, and something arch company must do on it's own. That's why each company paid differing amounts, and for differing parts of the portfolio, as well as to access to other parts.
Which is exactly why I originally said zero-sum context, and not zero sum-game. Ok, to make you happy let me put it more precisely. I am stipulating that Google's score and Apple's score are inversely related. You are apparently assuming that the underbidder's score is zero and the asset winner's is Bid-Value, though Value of course may only be known in hindsight.
There is no such thing as zero sum context. Either it is or it isn't. Here, one side won, and the other lost. There is no zero sum anything. There is no current way to evaluate it. It will take years.
As to MS, it's really unclear what is going to happen. Are they content to become a patent troll under the smartphone bridge? Will they keep pushing WP7? If it fails will they push Windows 8? Are consumers interested at all? There seems a shocking lack of interest in both WP7 and WebOS from consumers. I guess we'll find out if WP7 has any legs at all when Nokia starts to kick out models.
Posters love to call every company that has IP, and attempts to get paid for it, a patent troll, but that's just silly. There are hundreds of thousands of patents, if not millions, that are licensed out. Is IBM a patent troll because they receive billions every year in patent fees? Of course not! Neither are most of the other thousands of companies and individuals who invent something, and are getting fees for it.
So is MS a patent troll? Not really. They've invented much themselves, And buying more patents doesn't make them trolls. If someone invents something, no one else has the right to take it and use it without paying for it, assuming that the invention is valid, which most, but not all are.
If I invent something, and patent it, but can't get the money to make it, and can't convince other companies to do so, and then find that someone Is making it without coming to me for a license, and I sue, am I a patent troll? Of course not! But this happens all the time. And often, companies invent many things in the course of their R&D, but decide that they don't need them now. Does that mean that another company should can steal that IP for themselves? Again, of course not.
As to Samsung and WebOS, I don't think that would be a defensive play regarding MS. The logical defensive play there would be to jump to WP7, which is what MS is no doubt angling for, and probably offering reduced license terms for OEMs that do. WebOS seems more likely a poke on Google's nose to try to get them to partner more closely with Samsung. As I understand it, each Android revision gets launched on an exclusive with a partner, and these deals are extremely lucrative in both cash and marketshare.
I knew that wouldn't think so, but your response makes even less sense. Dealing with HP could be a counterweight to both MS, Google, and of course, Apple. We also don't know what HP might be asking for fees. I suspect, though of course it's just my take, that HP would be asking for less than MS is demanding. Hp announced some time ago that WebOS would be offered for licensing, and people laughed, think that no one would be interested, because of its tiny take-up. But perhaps they were wrong.
As for Samsung dealing with MS to make WP7 phones, and so getting a better deal than the $15 MS is demanding, well... Samsung ALREADY makes WP7 phones, for your information, and still, they're being smacked down by MS.
By that reasoning, would you say that if Google had bid $5B and Rockstar then bowed out, that Google had won spectacularly? Or would you then have said Apple forced them to spectacularly overpay? I'm pretty sure I already know what answer you would have given.
There was a whole bunch of smart guys involved on all sides with a lot more information on what those patents might actually give them, as well as what other business interests and decisions had already been made. Compare that to a few guys in a forum making uneducated guesses this early after the game making factual statements on who won or lost?
No members judgement of the results is any more valid than anyone else's IMHO. It may well be years, if ever, before hindsight reveals if Apple/Rockstar wildly overpaid, stole the auction, or just simply got a reasonable return for the investment.
We now have information supplied by the Canadian court documents on this that the Canadian government is using in its review. This give us a much more detailed view of what went on. The article give us some of the highlights:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/09/vesper/
Anyone not taking google seriously is an idiot...I don't care if they are bidding mathematical constants or not. Google isn't always successful but they are very sharp competitors with very good top management.
Apple won this round for sure but you guys are petty fans even in victory by taking one very minor aspect and blowing it up to be some huge indicator of Google competence.
And I think that you might be assuming too much about Google's competence here. We can look at several companies in severe decline, that just a few years ago were thought to be extremely well led, but proved not to be. Motorola, Nokia, and RIM are but a few that had their time in the sun, but are now in a state of decline. These things play out over years, so we don't always know when it started until afterwards.
I'm not saying that this is the case for Google now, but neither can you state that it isn't. If somehow, Android loses it's growing dominance, and that can be traced back to their failure to obtain these patents, then it will be said that management didn't understand their importance, and what was happening around them. If Android continues its rise for years to come, the it will be seen differently, but right now, Google's attitude is puzzling. They've been making very confusing statements and moves.
No, my agenda is to try to get it through to people who should be intelligent enough to understand it that their analysis is grossly oversimplified. I have no idea who 'won' the auction, moreover unlike you I am happy to admit it.
You are the ones with certainty that lacks evidence, I'm the one presenting the case that this issue is nuanced.
I'm sure that the winners and losers in this auction very clearly know who they are. And Schmitt made a statement which you should have read, as it was on all the news and tech sites, about how unfortunate the situation about the result was, and how they were going to look for more IP to buy.
That doesn't read like someone who feels they won. It's definitely the story from a loser.
The error you keep making is in assuming that Apple would be overpaying.
Go find where I said that and quote it, I never once said that Apple has definitely overpaid. You are assuming I'm assuming this.
It could be that it was worth much more to Google as well, but that they decided they couldn't afford it.
Well that's clearly not true. We know that Google has the cash to pay more than 4billion, if the Patents were worth more than 5billion to Google then they would have had an expected profit by bidding higher. Google is a huge cash machine with no significant liabilities.
You keep insisting that only Google knows how much these patents are worth.
Quote where I keep insisting this? I've said several times, Google has an estimate of their worth to Google and an estimate of their worth to Apple, Apple has its own estimates. Nobody knows the value. But that's the second time you've accused me of stating something that I didn'tr state. Please quote where I stated that only google knew the value, otherwise drop this ridiculous line.
You keep insisting that anything over Google's bid is over paying. why is that?
No, I simply say that if Google overbid then they have caused Apple to pay more than the value of the patents to Google. In that instance Google has reduced the net present value of the asset to Apple, even if it hasn't pushed it negative.
That is all I'm saying. Not that Google are clairvoyant, or omniscient, or any of the ridiculous things you keep saying.
Next time you think I'm saying something ridiculous QUOTE WHERE I SAY IT.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid.
Yes you did, and I'll quote it, you said.
And what if Google was wrong, and ended up paying hundreds of millions more themselves? It would have backfired if they didn't think that price was worth it. I think we can safely put that argument to rest.
How do you parse that other than it is you saying that we can dismiss the possibility that Google would intentionally overbid? Or how about
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.
Sorry but unlike you, I'm not ascribing any opinion to you other than the ones that you clearly state.
You have an amazing ability to take what others say, and twist it around so that it bears no relation to it
You are projecting.
So let's get this clear. I've said numerous times that Google might have chosen to overbid, and I have been roundly criticized for saying it. You are now claiming that you agree that they might have overbid? Or are you still saying that they definitively didn't overbid after just claiming that you didn't say it?
I think we need to get this clear because at this point, in addition to completely misrepresenting what I'm saying, you seem also to be completely misrepresenting what you're saying.
Go find where I said that and quote it, I never once said that Apple has definitely overpaid. You are assuming I'm assuming this.
I'll give some of it, but reading through almost 300 posts to find every quote is a bit much to ask.
"Solipsism is absolutely right when he said that part of the point for Google is to make competitors overpay."
"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."
"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."
"And when your group has higher perceived need for the Asset the higher your competitor can safely drive the price. Surely that's clear?"
"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. "
"Sometimes in game theory, even if I cannot win I can and should at least ensure that you also lose."
I'll stop here. We can see the trend in your thinking, even if you can not. By putting the word"definitively" into the sentence, you think you can avoid all that you've said, but you can't.
Well that's clearly not true. We know that Google has the cash to pay more than 4billion, if the Patents were worth more than 5billion to Google then they would have had an expected profit by bidding higher. Google is a huge cash machine with no significant liabilities.
Having the cash doesn't mean that you think you can spend more than a certain part of it. Do we know Google's plans for that cash? No, we don't. So it's very possible that they didn't think they could afford something they felt that they needed.
Quote where I keep insisting this? I've said several times, Google has an estimate of their worth to Google and an estimate of their worth to Apple, Apple has its own estimates. Nobody knows the value. But that's the second time you've accused me of stating something that I didn'tr state. Please quote where I stated that only google knew the value, otherwise drop this ridiculous line.
Ok, you did state that, but then gave it up, as in a clip from one of your posts above.
No, I simply say that if Google overbid then they have caused Apple to pay more than the value of the patents to Google. In that instance Google has reduced the net present value of the asset to Apple, even if it hasn't pushed it negative.
From the quotes above, you were saying that.
Next time you think I'm saying something ridiculous QUOTE WHERE I SAY IT.
I have, a number of times.
Yes you did, and I'll quote it, you said.
I'll put your quote of what I said in here so we can all see it in context:
"Quote:
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid."
And then:
"Quote:
And what if Google was wrong, and ended up paying hundreds of millions more themselves? It would have backfired if they didn't think that price was worth it. I think we can safely put that argument to rest."
And where in those two quotes you posted did I say that Google wouldn't overbid? What I said that they wouldn't intentionally attempt to get Apple to overpay. I've said in other posts that Google could overbid, but not for that purpose, perhaps in error.
How do you parse that other than it is you saying that we can dismiss the possibility that Google would intentionally overbid? Or how about
Sorry but unlike you, I'm not ascribing any opinion to you other than the ones that you clearly state.
Wow! You try to take a response to your assertion that Google probably overbid to cause Apple to pay more, where I'm asking what would have happened if that happened, as my saying it happened, or didn't happen? I'm not saying either thing. I'm questioning what would have happened, which is why I wrote all of those comments as questions?
[quote
You are projecting.
I'm simply stating what you're doing.
So let's get this clear. I've said numerous times that Google might have chosen to overbid, and I have been roundly criticized for saying it. You are now claiming that you agree that they might have overbid? Or are you still saying that they definitively didn't overbid after just claiming that you didn't say it?
I think we need to get this clear because at this point, in addition to completely misrepresenting what I'm saying, you seem also to be completely misrepresenting what you're saying.
What I'm saying is that I think it's unlikely that Google would have raised their bid above what they were willing to pay. This is what I've always said. Is that definite? Of course not. We can't get into their heads. But it's unlikely they would have done that. We both agree that it's dangerous, because it might not work.
I've quoted you a number of times, so it can be seen by others, even if you don't agree, that what I and others have been ascribing to you is correct, no matter how much you may deny it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...Z4H_story.html
I simply asked you a question, rather than stating you said something that you did not. As is becoming all too common, you're avoiding an answer again, something for which you've become known on this forum.
You asked a question that implied I was saying something I wasn't, and which was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Something for which you've become known on this forum.
I just posted several detail paragraphs presenting my case. You presented a strawman. and I'm the guy with no case?
Sorry to break it to you but I have a case, you just don't like it. You on other hand have beliefs, approaching the religious level, which presumably explains your righteous anger that I fail to share them.
No, you posted several detailed paragraphs stating your fantasies based on your unsupported assumptions.
The auction finale may not be the end of the story. Are antitrust folk looking into why three of the largest mobile players are permitted to collude to gang up on the fourth?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...Z4H_story.html
Google crying foul clearly shows they think they lost big time. But, since Google were "colluding" with Intel, it's rather disingenuous of them, just like paying you to come here and propagandize for them.
You asked a question that implied I was saying something I wasn't, and which was entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Something for which you've become known on this forum.
So still no answer?
http://www.ipvalueadded.com/aggregator/sources/2
According to their supposition, Apple had set a limit of around $3B, while Google had figured around $4B max.
FRAND is not an automatic payment machine. Usually, the companies with the patents declare FRAND themselves, to force others to pay up. Sometimes, as with Apple now, they've got some patents that others desperately want to license, and that a company doesn't want to license, so those others attempt to declare FRAND, but it doesn't always work. I know of a lot of patents over the decades in various industries that were considered to be indispensable, but weren't licensed by the holders. In fact most patents are considered to be indispensable, but aren't licensed.
I didn't state that FRAND was an "automatic payment machine". Just that patents required by LTE are likely available under FRAND. Why? Because the patents were purchased by a consortium, are core to LTE, probably will be required to be by regulatory bodies as part of the sale and was originally promised by Nortel under FRAND for a 1% fee.
If your patent is indispensable and not licensed then it likely won't get accepted by a standards body since no one but you can use it or the "standard" itself doesn't get widely used since...you guessed it...nobody but you can use it.
And I think that you might be assuming too much about Google's competence here. We can look at several companies in severe decline, that just a few years ago were thought to be extremely well led, but proved not to be. Motorola, Nokia, and RIM are but a few that had their time in the sun, but are now in a state of decline. These things play out over years, so we don't always know when it started until afterwards.
There are zero indications that Google is in any more decline than Apple. If anything Apple is of far greater risk of decline once Jobs retires.
I'm not saying that this is the case for Google now, but neither can you state that it isn't.
Right...because both are of equal probability. Not. I sure as hell can state that Google isn't in a state of decline with a MUCH higher level of confidence than any idiotic claim that Google is in decline.
If somehow, Android loses it's growing dominance, and that can be traced back to their failure to obtain these patents, then it will be said that management didn't understand their importance, and what was happening around them. If Android continues its rise for years to come, the it will be seen differently, but right now, Google's attitude is puzzling. They've been making very confusing statements and moves.
These patents have a certain strategic value. Google determined this to be $4B. Good management has sufficient willpower not to keep bidding past prudence...even if it is "only" half a billion more. Which it wouldn't have been given that Apple's consortium was far larger than Google's and could have kept bidding past that $4.5B mark without actually individually spending $4B.
I didn't state that FRAND was an "automatic payment machine". Just that patents required by LTE are likely available under FRAND. Why? Because the patents were purchased by a consortium, are core to LTE, probably will be required to be by regulatory bodies as part of the sale and was originally promised by Nortel under FRAND for a 1% fee.
If your patent is indispensable and not licensed then it likely won't get accepted by a standards body since no one but you can use it or the "standard" itself doesn't get widely used since...you guessed it...nobody but you can use it.
Sure. But that assumes that you want it to be accepted by a standards body. In Apple's case, often they want the patents for their own devices. If they have a better way of doing something, that doesn't make it indispensable, though it might make it very desirable.
There are zero indications that Google is in any more decline than Apple. If anything Apple is of far greater risk of decline once Jobs retires.
Right...because both are of equal probability. Not. I sure as hell can state that Google isn't in a state of decline with a MUCH higher level of confidence than any idiotic claim that Google is in decline.
These patents have a certain strategic value. Google determined this to be $4B. Good management has sufficient willpower not to keep bidding past prudence...even if it is "only" half a billion more. Which it wouldn't have been given that Apple's consortium was far larger than Google's and could have kept bidding past that $4.5B mark without actually individually spending $4B.
I'm not saying that Google is in decline. But you're making too many assumptions in regards to them not being so. What happens if the government here and in Europe decide that Google is abusing its position? What happens if Baidu moves out of China, and challenges them throughout Asia? There are a lot of scenarios that could result in Google losing its dominance.
Will that happen? Who knows, but it could. apple could lose too of course, but we're talking about Google.
http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/co...-consortiums-4
Quote: "The error you keep making is in assuming that Apple would be overpaying."
and
Quote: "You keep insisting that only Google knows how much these patents are worth."
and
Quote: "You keep insisting that anything over Google's bid is over paying. why is that?"
Let's see how you did, first you quoted a lot of places where I said that Apple might have overpaid, or even said something completely different then you admitted.
I'll stop here. We can see the trend in your thinking, even if you can not. By putting the word"definitively" into the sentence, you think you can avoid all that you've said, but you can't.
...
I've quoted you a number of times, so it can be seen by others, even if you don't agree, that what I and others have been ascribing to you is correct, no matter how much you may deny it.
Let me get this right because I'd like to be clear. You know what I'm thinking but I don't? If I repeatedly say that I think that Google probably, possibly or maybe intentionally overbid in order to make Apple pay more than they otherwise would have - you think that means that I assume that Apple overbid? When I said '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.' - I meant that Apple overbid somehow without even mentioning them? If I say that in some circumstance X that Apple overbid that means that I assume Apple overbid?
Do you really want to stick to that? Wouldn't it be better to just accept that you grossly misquoted me because you kept reading what you thought I was saying and not what I was actually saying?
Let's go on to the second point. Even though I apparently 'keep insisting' that Google has perfect knowledge you in fact could only find one place where I'd stated it, accidentally and subsequently corrected my statement precisely to avoid being so misconstrued.
Perhaps you aren't a native english speaker, but the word 'keep' in this context connotes repetition, and the word 'insisting' is rather defeated if I withdrew a statement as a typo immediately afterwards. If you think that a single typo allows you to tell somebody that they 'keep insisting' something then I'm no longer surprised that you think that repeated expressions of uncertainty equal certainty.
You don't even attempt to find quotes to back up your third ridiculous statement.
Now let's see your claims that I'm being unfair and putting words into your mouth, this time with a bit more of the context than you included - my additions in bold.
"Quote:
Suppose Apple believe that there is no possibility that Google will overbid, as you apparently do. Apple also believe that the patents must be more valuable to Apple than they are to Google, as you also do. Therefore Apple must always outbid Google, which you have said is an unreasonable assumption. Something here clearly isn't right, and it's the assumption that you should never overbid.
"Quote:
You keep putting words in my mouth. I never said that Google wouldn't over bid. I also never said that they would.
It's plain from the sense of my paragraph that I am talking of the case of Google intentionally overbidding, and that I assume that you believe that Google would never intentionally overbid. That's made quite clear by the last line, 'should' would make no sense in the case of accidental overbids.
Even more tellingly there's that ridiculous claim you make that I keep insisting Google has perfect knowledge of the asset value. Since you believe that I think that, in your view I can't possibly mean that Google would accidentally overbid, since you believe that I think that impossible. Confusing perhaps, but there you are. You according to your own stated beliefs of my opinions couldn't misinterpret my statement, except intentionally.
Now your only wriggle room is closed I'm afraid. If you claim you meant that Google would never intentionally overbid but might accidentally overbid then in the context of my statement, I was correctly stating your view - and at worst you could insist that i insert a redundant 'intentionally' into the statement. The entire argument hangs together just as well with it in there. If you claim that you merely think it unlikely that Google would overbid then the quotes damn you- because you say that we can 'put the argument to rest' that they would do so, and that 'you don't bluff at these things'. Given that if I said 'You generally/probably/mostly/maybe don't bluff' you'd consider that a definite assumption, I think your failure to in anyway hedge allows me to ascribe certainty, don't you?
So why don't you be a man here and accept that you have been putting words into my mouth and I have not been putting words into yours. Then we can get on with disagreeing about the actual matters, which is surely more fun than me continuing to tie you in these knots. You will grow as a person when you learn to admit these errors.
What I'm saying is that I think it's unlikely that Google would have raised their bid above what they were willing to pay. This is what I've always said. Is that definite? Of course not. We can't get into their heads. But it's unlikely they would have done that. We both agree that it's dangerous, because it might not work.
Why is it unlikely that they would intentionally overbid? Let's assume for sake of simplicity that the estimates of the value of the patents are G and A to google and apple respectively, and for the sake of simplicity assume they both have the same estimates.
A simple model for the payoff in this game is that Google score (G-B) if they win with a bid of B, or -(A-B) if Apple wins with a bid of A, and Apple scores the opposite - ie. a strict zero-sum game. Let's also assume that A > G. In fact let's make A 4 and G 2. In this simple case google should bid up to 3 to minimize their loss. What if we relax the zero sum restriction? If Google's score is proportional to -Apple's score at all then they should bid more than G, only if google considers its score 0 upon losing the auction does it make sense for them to not intentionally overbid.
And this is in the simplified case where both the parties have the same estimates. As soon as you introduce doubt regarding that the game becomes yet more complicated because true bluffing starts to be relevant.
Not overbidding is in many ways as dangerous as overbidding. The money that your opponent is saving as a result will be spent to buy other assets that will be used against you - it's quite likely that more patent pools will be coming onto the market - especially with RIM and Nokia fading fast, and Moto on their last legs.
Sure. But that assumes that you want it to be accepted by a standards body. In Apple's case, often they want the patents for their own devices. If they have a better way of doing something, that doesn't make it indispensable, though it might make it very desirable.
Which part of LTE is confusing you? Unless you wish to pursue the concept that Apple is about to build it's own competing mobile network standard your counter argument has no merit other than to avoid either dropping the issue gracefully or conceding that my point was correct.
Apple is NOT going to use the LTE specific patents to keep manufacturers from making LTE phones. The result of the patents will make iPhones slightly less to make because the FRAND royalties will probably be set to be more than Nortel's $1/handset...as much as Apple thinks it can get away with without inviting regulatory reaction.
The high purchase price might even help...the patent pool sold for 3 times expectations so it can be argued that Nortel undervalued the patent values at $1/handset and it should be $3/handset. Oh gee, RIM has a license and MS might have enough rights to convey a license under WP7. That also gives a slight edge to the other handset makers in the consortium that make Android phones but AFAIK Samsung, HTC and Moto aren't in that group. Sony and Ericsson are.
Which is pretty much ideal. See, we're not singling out Android, Sony & Sony-Ericsson are part of the consortium making plenty of Android phones and $3/handset to all comers is a fair and non-discriminatory price.
This isn't a game ender for Android but keep chipping away at licensing costs and it helps WP7 immensely. Splitting the markets 30% Android, 20% WP7, 30% iOS, 10% other is a huge strategic win for Apple and a potentially huge strategic loss for Google...all that needs to happen is Bing becoming the default search for iOS and Google just lost a huge gamble by competing with their partners.
This is why this is disappointing for Google but not devastating. There's still a lot of chipping away that needs to be done and Android still has a huge lead on WP7. Personally I like WP7 better but it still needs one more mango sized update.