I'm not sure they actually believed that. They certainly said it, and loudly - but if it was likely to end up in litigation it would be suicidal for them to admit there were doubts in public, so that doesn't really mean anything.
Cross licensing agreements are effectively contracts and when a firm declares bankruptcy their contracts are frequently torn up, especially where those contracts materially reduce the value of an asset.
It would take a bankruptcy law specialist to say whether Microsoft's rights over those patents were really as secure as they were claiming, but I'm willing to bet there was at least some risk of blowback - and given that MS has made a big point of the fact that it protects its customers from IP issues unlike those evil free folks pushing Linux they really couldn't run the risk.
Edit: A bit of detail on this from wiki
The term executory contract assumes a specialized meaning in some areas of law. In bankruptcy law, an executory contract is a contract in which continuing obligations exist on both sides of the contract. In this context, a debtor may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease subject to court approval.
Casual reading would seem to indicate that this part of the law is in flux after recent court decisions regarding trademark licenses and bankruptcy- so perhaps MS could have carried the day, but it's definitely not a slam dunk. It probably also would vary between jurisdictions, so possibly MS could have found itself licensed in the US, but not in the EU.
Google could have paid the 4.5 billion. They could have paid 10 billion, so why drop out? They needed the patents more than apple to cover android from what I understand. Or is google betting they won't be sued by anyone? Im a bit confused on why the accepted defeat.
There becomes a point at which the cost of not purchasing the patents is actually cheaper than buying them, ie. the cost of licenses or re-engineering is less and probably better for overall cashflow.
I must say I love Google's bid values. Any number is as good as another so why not bid pi.
There becomes a point at which the cost of not purchasing the patents is actually cheaper than buying them, ie. the cost of licenses or re-engineering is less and probably better for overall cashflow.
I must say I love Google's bid values. Any number is as good as another so why not bid pi.
If I we're still a shareholder I'd be pissed at Google for their flippant regard with their company's money and future. The entire point of an auction is to pay as little as possible by gauging your competitor's interest and funds or to get your competitor to pay more than the actual worth. None of what Google did led to either of those two outcomes. It was a complete waste of time.
If I we're still a shareholder I'd be pissed at Google for their flippant regard with their company's money and future. The entire point of an auction is to pay as little as possible by gauging your competitor's interest and funds or to get your competitor to pay more than the actual worth. None of what Google did led to either of those two outcomes. It was a complete waste of time.
I don't think that's quite fair, Google's approach is a classic psycho out. During the bidding their rivals had to ask what the strange bids meant, even once they realized they were constants they had to wonder what the deeper meaning was. Did this mean Google wasn't serious or was it a double bluff? If Google felt the patents were worth more - they could have bid more.
I don't think that's quite fair, Google's approach is a classic psycho out. During the bidding their rivals had to ask what the strange bids meant, even once they realized they were constants they had to wonder what the deeper meaning was. Did this mean Google wasn't serious or was it a double bluff? If Google felt the patents were worth more - they could have bid more.
Concerning meanings and psyching out your opponent with crazy ass bids... you're not serious... are you?! Do you really think the guys from Apple gave a shit... did you think that they were all wierded out thinking they were going to turn into pumpkins or something...
As concerns the reasons for Google not bidding more... none of us will ever know...
Concerning meanings and psyching out your opponent with crazy ass bids... you're not serious... are you?! Do you really think the guys from Apple gave a shit... did you think that they were all wierded out thinking they were going to turn into pumpkins or something...
As concerns the reasons for Google not bidding more... none of us will ever know...
I'm quite sure the guys at Apple scratched their heads a bit, bids send a message, you even implied that yourself - the aim is to read your opponents message and if possible to hide your own, or lie. Also this message went out not just to Apple but to everybody in the tech-geek world. If you go onto engadget the cheers from the fandroids on this are deafening.
Google changed the terms of the discussion, instead of the chatter being all that they lost, half of it is about the uber-geek attitude they displayed. That's very valuable PR in an important opinion-forming demographic.
Google changed the terms of the discussion, instead of the chatter being all that they lost, half of it is about the uber-geek attitude they displayed. That's very valuable PR in an important opinion-forming demographic.
Yes, such as the demographic of government regulators and courts that Google will beseech to block the sale and who will likely view Google as a being purely asses.
Yes, such as the demographic of government regulators and courts that Google will beseech to block the sale and who will likely view Google as a being purely asses.
I doubt Google is going to do any such thing. Apple got pre-cleared to buy the patents and Google has notably not itself engaged in litigation with Apple, and vice versa. The Apple v Google story is great copy and it gets lots of page hits, but it's not cut and dried - not the way that Apple v MS was back in the 90s.
If anybody is going to complain about this it won't be Google, it will be Samsung.
Someone should make a movie about the auction: "The Nortel Patents Auction"
The movie should cover all the preparations for the auction from both the bidders an the seller. What were the plans, the strategies, the preparations, the emotions, the participants for each company.
Which company prepared more thoroughly?
Did the companies review all 6000+ patents and patent applications to determine which ones they wanted and which ones the could give up?
What was Steve's involvement in Apple's preparation?
How did RIMM plan to get so much from this deal for nothing using Canadian tax laws.
Why did Intel side with Google instead of Apple? (I think Intel wanted the 4G LTE patents and Apple said no.)
Would Apple have paid 4.5 billions if it were bidding alone?
What were the emotional reactions after the bidding?
I doubt Google is going to do any such thing. Apple got pre-cleared to buy the patents and Google has notably not itself engaged in litigation with Apple, and vice versa. The Apple v Google story is great copy and it gets lots of page hits, but it's not cut and dried - not the way that Apple v MS was back in the 90s.
If anybody is going to complain about this it won't be Google, it will be Samsung.
Uh, this casts a shadow on everything Google does going forward (or in reverse, as the case may be).
The handest OEMs thought Google was their boyfriend, but in fact it's their dealer, and practically their pimp. At this point there choice is to stay with Google or try to switch to MS, they don't have any other options - and MS is the bluebeard of tech - there's a room in Redmond with the bodies of their former industry partners.
I'm quite sure the guys at Apple scratched their heads a bit, bids send a message, you even implied that yourself - the aim is to read your opponents message and if possible to hide your own, or lie. Also this message went out not just to Apple but to everybody in the tech-geek world. If you go onto engadget the cheers from the fandroids on this are deafening.
Google changed the terms of the discussion, instead of the chatter being all that they lost, half of it is about the uber-geek attitude they displayed. That's very valuable PR in an important opinion-forming demographic.
Oh for fucks sake.
Rockstar just looked at the bid and added a few million... they didn't give a rat's ass what Google bid... they were ready to buy and buy they did... with over a $100 billion in the war chest altogether.
Engadget??!! C'mon... you gotta be kidding me... beyond the 25,000 people addicted to tech forums nobody gave a shit what Google did or didn't do during the bidding. 98% of the population didn't even know there was an auction and the majority of the other 2% heard it on the news and then changed the channels.
Engadget??!! C'mon... you gotta be kidding me... beyond the 25,000 people addicted to tech forums nobody gave a shit what Google did or didn't do during the bidding. 98% of the population didn't even know there was an auction and the majority of the other 2% heard it on the news and then changed the channels.
There was a really interesting discussion a while back on an Apple related podcast, I think build&analyze, where they talked about Facebook and Amazon going out of their way to try to win over geeks. Geeks opinion mattered, partly because geeks are opinion formers who influence non-geeks but also because geeks are your target market for recruitment.
Google absolutely cares about it's perception amongst geeks. Why else do you think they release high production value videos about their seawater cooling system in a datacentre?
Quote:
Rockstar just looked at the bid and added a few million... they didn't give a rat's ass what Google bid... they were ready to buy and buy they did... with over a $100 billion in the war chest altogether.
Ok so if bidding is really so simple then you also disagreed with Solipsism
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The entire point of an auction is to pay as little as possible by gauging your competitor's interest and funds or to get your competitor to pay more than the actual worth.
Either participants do attempt to gauge their competitor's interest from their bidding strategy or they don't, which is it? Either Google's approach was significant in some game theoretic way, or it was harmless. But certainly you can't believe it was bad for Google.
Ok so if bidding is really so simple then you also disagreed with Solipsism
Yeah... so?!...
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer
Either participants do attempt to gauge their competitor's interest from their bidding strategy or they don't, which is it? Either Google's approach was significant in some game theoretic way, or it was harmless. But certainly you can't believe it was bad for Google.
They didn't give a shit about Google's interest... Apple for one, and I'm sure Microsoft and RIM as well, were not walking away from this auction empty handed. They had the cash and they knew that Google would not empty the bank to get these patents... so they just kept bidding. 4 of the companies on Rockstar's team are phone manufacturers... nobody on Google's team is a phone manufacturer. ... and, again, Rockstar had the cash. You figure out who was going to walk away from this with a win.
Do you really think that Apple, Microsoft, RIM and Sony didn't analyze Google's cash position prior to this... they already had a preset number where they knew it would hurt Google to play... so all they had to do was to keep bidding to that number knowing it wasn't going to hurt Rockstar. One of the Rockstar members had double the cash that Google has... another equaled Google. Google could have put any damn number down and it wouldn't have fazed Rockstar... until that X number that would hurt Google was reached... but Google also knew that number and they weren't going to get anywhere close to it.
$2 billion for those patents was nothing to Apple and Google knew the writing was on the wall when Apple joined the Rockstar team. Google might have had fancy numbers but I know they shit their pants when Apple joined Microsoft in the bid.
... and hell, I give the Apple team some really big points for the name Rockstar.
They didn't give a shit about Google's interest... Apple for one, and I'm sure Microsoft and RIM as well, were not walking away from this auction empty handed.
Ok if you really think that then you're crazy. Apple had an upper limit on this auction and it wasn't 70Billion. It probably wasn't even 30billion (google's cash position). There's a huge amount of game-theoretic study on auctions and of all tech firms I'd expect Google to be aware of them.
The government isn't concerned about this at all. it's a matter of taxes. When money is earned offshore, the tax is paid there. But governments want to do double dipping, so some large companies that earn a large portion of their income offshore want some tax relief to bring that money here.
It's a complex question, but I agree with what they want to do. For the US, better the money is here then there.
The currencies would be whatever they would be expected to be wherever they are. They aren't in US dollars. I certainly don't know what the earnings are specifically. We just know what has been estimated.
I don't agree with their idea.
It's a crock of crap. They were given tax free through loop holes to off-shore it and instead of paying the 35% to bring it back in they want to cut it down to 5%.
They can grow up and realize the lowest the US should allow it back in for is 20%.
And yes the Government is concerned which is the reason they rejected the 5% offer.
Comments
Microsoft and Sony .. not sure but likely some indirect protection for makers of WP phone
Nice wrap-up
Microsoft believed they had access to use the patents regardless of who purchased them.
Impossible to say why they were there but I would guess...
1. To keep the patents from Google and
2. To make it easier to squeeze further licensing from Android manufacturers.
Nice wrap-up
Microsoft believed they had access to use the patents regardless of who purchased them.
I'm not sure they actually believed that. They certainly said it, and loudly - but if it was likely to end up in litigation it would be suicidal for them to admit there were doubts in public, so that doesn't really mean anything.
Cross licensing agreements are effectively contracts and when a firm declares bankruptcy their contracts are frequently torn up, especially where those contracts materially reduce the value of an asset.
It would take a bankruptcy law specialist to say whether Microsoft's rights over those patents were really as secure as they were claiming, but I'm willing to bet there was at least some risk of blowback - and given that MS has made a big point of the fact that it protects its customers from IP issues unlike those evil free folks pushing Linux they really couldn't run the risk.
Edit: A bit of detail on this from wiki
The term executory contract assumes a specialized meaning in some areas of law. In bankruptcy law, an executory contract is a contract in which continuing obligations exist on both sides of the contract. In this context, a debtor may assume or reject any executory contract or unexpired lease subject to court approval.
Casual reading would seem to indicate that this part of the law is in flux after recent court decisions regarding trademark licenses and bankruptcy- so perhaps MS could have carried the day, but it's definitely not a slam dunk. It probably also would vary between jurisdictions, so possibly MS could have found itself licensed in the US, but not in the EU.
This approach to betting was popularised by a young online player called Tom "Durrrr" Dwan. Look him up...
So now not only Google copied iPhone, copied facebook (Google+), they also copied this Tom guy? Never see a more creative company in my life.
Google could have paid the 4.5 billion. They could have paid 10 billion, so why drop out? They needed the patents more than apple to cover android from what I understand. Or is google betting they won't be sued by anyone? Im a bit confused on why the accepted defeat.
There becomes a point at which the cost of not purchasing the patents is actually cheaper than buying them, ie. the cost of licenses or re-engineering is less and probably better for overall cashflow.
I must say I love Google's bid values. Any number is as good as another so why not bid pi.
There becomes a point at which the cost of not purchasing the patents is actually cheaper than buying them, ie. the cost of licenses or re-engineering is less and probably better for overall cashflow.
I must say I love Google's bid values. Any number is as good as another so why not bid pi.
If I we're still a shareholder I'd be pissed at Google for their flippant regard with their company's money and future. The entire point of an auction is to pay as little as possible by gauging your competitor's interest and funds or to get your competitor to pay more than the actual worth. None of what Google did led to either of those two outcomes. It was a complete waste of time.
If I we're still a shareholder I'd be pissed at Google for their flippant regard with their company's money and future. The entire point of an auction is to pay as little as possible by gauging your competitor's interest and funds or to get your competitor to pay more than the actual worth. None of what Google did led to either of those two outcomes. It was a complete waste of time.
I don't think that's quite fair, Google's approach is a classic psycho out. During the bidding their rivals had to ask what the strange bids meant, even once they realized they were constants they had to wonder what the deeper meaning was. Did this mean Google wasn't serious or was it a double bluff? If Google felt the patents were worth more - they could have bid more.
I don't think that's quite fair, Google's approach is a classic psycho out. During the bidding their rivals had to ask what the strange bids meant, even once they realized they were constants they had to wonder what the deeper meaning was. Did this mean Google wasn't serious or was it a double bluff? If Google felt the patents were worth more - they could have bid more.
Concerning meanings and psyching out your opponent with crazy ass bids... you're not serious... are you?! Do you really think the guys from Apple gave a shit... did you think that they were all wierded out thinking they were going to turn into pumpkins or something...
As concerns the reasons for Google not bidding more... none of us will ever know...
Concerning meanings and psyching out your opponent with crazy ass bids... you're not serious... are you?! Do you really think the guys from Apple gave a shit... did you think that they were all wierded out thinking they were going to turn into pumpkins or something...
As concerns the reasons for Google not bidding more... none of us will ever know...
I'm quite sure the guys at Apple scratched their heads a bit, bids send a message, you even implied that yourself - the aim is to read your opponents message and if possible to hide your own, or lie. Also this message went out not just to Apple but to everybody in the tech-geek world. If you go onto engadget the cheers from the fandroids on this are deafening.
Google changed the terms of the discussion, instead of the chatter being all that they lost, half of it is about the uber-geek attitude they displayed. That's very valuable PR in an important opinion-forming demographic.
Google changed the terms of the discussion, instead of the chatter being all that they lost, half of it is about the uber-geek attitude they displayed. That's very valuable PR in an important opinion-forming demographic.
Yes, such as the demographic of government regulators and courts that Google will beseech to block the sale and who will likely view Google as a being purely asses.
Yes, such as the demographic of government regulators and courts that Google will beseech to block the sale and who will likely view Google as a being purely asses.
I doubt Google is going to do any such thing. Apple got pre-cleared to buy the patents and Google has notably not itself engaged in litigation with Apple, and vice versa. The Apple v Google story is great copy and it gets lots of page hits, but it's not cut and dried - not the way that Apple v MS was back in the 90s.
If anybody is going to complain about this it won't be Google, it will be Samsung.
The movie should cover all the preparations for the auction from both the bidders an the seller. What were the plans, the strategies, the preparations, the emotions, the participants for each company.
Which company prepared more thoroughly?
Did the companies review all 6000+ patents and patent applications to determine which ones they wanted and which ones the could give up?
What was Steve's involvement in Apple's preparation?
How did RIMM plan to get so much from this deal for nothing using Canadian tax laws.
Why did Intel side with Google instead of Apple? (I think Intel wanted the 4G LTE patents and Apple said no.)
Would Apple have paid 4.5 billions if it were bidding alone?
What were the emotional reactions after the bidding?
Time will tell.
I doubt Google is going to do any such thing. Apple got pre-cleared to buy the patents and Google has notably not itself engaged in litigation with Apple, and vice versa. The Apple v Google story is great copy and it gets lots of page hits, but it's not cut and dried - not the way that Apple v MS was back in the 90s.
If anybody is going to complain about this it won't be Google, it will be Samsung.
Uh, this casts a shadow on everything Google does going forward (or in reverse, as the case may be).
How did RIMM plan to get so much from this deal for nothing using Canadian tax laws.
Does that have any confirmation yet, or is it still just Cringely?
The handest OEMs thought Google was their boyfriend, but in fact it's their dealer, and practically their pimp. At this point there choice is to stay with Google or try to switch to MS, they don't have any other options - and MS is the bluebeard of tech - there's a room in Redmond with the bodies of their former industry partners.
Best summary of the situation I've ever read!
I'm quite sure the guys at Apple scratched their heads a bit, bids send a message, you even implied that yourself - the aim is to read your opponents message and if possible to hide your own, or lie. Also this message went out not just to Apple but to everybody in the tech-geek world. If you go onto engadget the cheers from the fandroids on this are deafening.
Google changed the terms of the discussion, instead of the chatter being all that they lost, half of it is about the uber-geek attitude they displayed. That's very valuable PR in an important opinion-forming demographic.
Oh for fucks sake.
Rockstar just looked at the bid and added a few million... they didn't give a rat's ass what Google bid... they were ready to buy and buy they did... with over a $100 billion in the war chest altogether.
Engadget??!! C'mon... you gotta be kidding me... beyond the 25,000 people addicted to tech forums nobody gave a shit what Google did or didn't do during the bidding. 98% of the population didn't even know there was an auction and the majority of the other 2% heard it on the news and then changed the channels.
Engadget??!! C'mon... you gotta be kidding me... beyond the 25,000 people addicted to tech forums nobody gave a shit what Google did or didn't do during the bidding. 98% of the population didn't even know there was an auction and the majority of the other 2% heard it on the news and then changed the channels.
There was a really interesting discussion a while back on an Apple related podcast, I think build&analyze, where they talked about Facebook and Amazon going out of their way to try to win over geeks. Geeks opinion mattered, partly because geeks are opinion formers who influence non-geeks but also because geeks are your target market for recruitment.
Google absolutely cares about it's perception amongst geeks. Why else do you think they release high production value videos about their seawater cooling system in a datacentre?
Rockstar just looked at the bid and added a few million... they didn't give a rat's ass what Google bid... they were ready to buy and buy they did... with over a $100 billion in the war chest altogether.
Ok so if bidding is really so simple then you also disagreed with Solipsism
The entire point of an auction is to pay as little as possible by gauging your competitor's interest and funds or to get your competitor to pay more than the actual worth.
Either participants do attempt to gauge their competitor's interest from their bidding strategy or they don't, which is it? Either Google's approach was significant in some game theoretic way, or it was harmless. But certainly you can't believe it was bad for Google.
Ok so if bidding is really so simple then you also disagreed with Solipsism
Yeah... so?!...
Either participants do attempt to gauge their competitor's interest from their bidding strategy or they don't, which is it? Either Google's approach was significant in some game theoretic way, or it was harmless. But certainly you can't believe it was bad for Google.
They didn't give a shit about Google's interest... Apple for one, and I'm sure Microsoft and RIM as well, were not walking away from this auction empty handed. They had the cash and they knew that Google would not empty the bank to get these patents... so they just kept bidding. 4 of the companies on Rockstar's team are phone manufacturers... nobody on Google's team is a phone manufacturer. ... and, again, Rockstar had the cash. You figure out who was going to walk away from this with a win.
Do you really think that Apple, Microsoft, RIM and Sony didn't analyze Google's cash position prior to this... they already had a preset number where they knew it would hurt Google to play... so all they had to do was to keep bidding to that number knowing it wasn't going to hurt Rockstar. One of the Rockstar members had double the cash that Google has... another equaled Google. Google could have put any damn number down and it wouldn't have fazed Rockstar... until that X number that would hurt Google was reached... but Google also knew that number and they weren't going to get anywhere close to it.
$2 billion for those patents was nothing to Apple and Google knew the writing was on the wall when Apple joined the Rockstar team. Google might have had fancy numbers but I know they shit their pants when Apple joined Microsoft in the bid.
... and hell, I give the Apple team some really big points for the name Rockstar.
Yeah... so?!...
They didn't give a shit about Google's interest... Apple for one, and I'm sure Microsoft and RIM as well, were not walking away from this auction empty handed.
Ok if you really think that then you're crazy. Apple had an upper limit on this auction and it wasn't 70Billion. It probably wasn't even 30billion (google's cash position). There's a huge amount of game-theoretic study on auctions and of all tech firms I'd expect Google to be aware of them.
The government isn't concerned about this at all. it's a matter of taxes. When money is earned offshore, the tax is paid there. But governments want to do double dipping, so some large companies that earn a large portion of their income offshore want some tax relief to bring that money here.
It's a complex question, but I agree with what they want to do. For the US, better the money is here then there.
The currencies would be whatever they would be expected to be wherever they are. They aren't in US dollars. I certainly don't know what the earnings are specifically. We just know what has been estimated.
I don't agree with their idea.
It's a crock of crap. They were given tax free through loop holes to off-shore it and instead of paying the 35% to bring it back in they want to cut it down to 5%.
They can grow up and realize the lowest the US should allow it back in for is 20%.
And yes the Government is concerned which is the reason they rejected the 5% offer.