The worst part is that the public is too stupid to realize Google is playing the victim, while it's very existence is due to it's software patents.
Google's karma is about gone, who suspects while they're screaming about this, they're figuring out how to buy software patents on the sly?
Karma is never gone. It can quickly change from good to bad depending on what energy you put out into the universe, but it is always there, waiting to bite you in the ass.
Perhaps you meant their mojo is almost gone?...and I would agree.
In a tweet, Smith stated, "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."
What sort of terms did they offer to Google? What precisely was the offer that Google said no to? We have no information on that.
If the offer was even-steven, Google is rightly being denigrated. If the offer was "you pay most of the money, we get most of the benefit", then Google may have had good reason to refuse. Maybe the offfer was neither of these.
Screw Google. They just should have stuck with search. At first, they were so much better than the competition, they killed them all. Instead of focusing on keeping ahead of those who figured our how to game PageRank, they stuck their fingers into random areas like YouTube and Picasa.
Now, Google searches are mediocre at best (when I started using Google in the 90's, the search results were so good, you'd think they were psychic.) They need to get back to basics instead of being a holding company for a bunch of various businesses.
It's amazing to me that gmail search still can't do partial word match.
It 's not the Nortel patent portfolio that went on the auction block last month. The Google lawyer may have been disingenuous in including that patent sale in his comments. We don't know what the supposed partnership offer terms were, if it was in fact a partnership. Certainly a question that deserves an answer if Google intends to continue that argument.
So there is a story in there of Google turning down a MS offer last year. Just not the story that DED has confusingly weaved. But tho I wouldn't wait on him to admit to his mistake you still gotta love him for his Apple dedication. He doesn't pretend not to be the ultimate fanboy and isn't ashamed to admit it.
OK kids - pay attention - there are lots of patents for sale out there so you need a little background:
NOVELL (the LAN networking company) holds key patents relating to, among others things, Unix. Microsoft entered a "partnership" with Novell while also providing funding via a third party group to SCO to support their litigation against Linux users and developers. The prevailing thought was that Microsoft would try to influence Novell to sell it's rights to Unix so that Microsoft could ostensibly force licensing of Unix code blocks allegedly found in Linux. So far however nothing SCO has brought to court against the defendants has stuck. Other rumors include Microsoft's desire to use parts of Unix to rework the Windows kernel into a stronger more flexible core. Microsoft has seen a strong incursion of Linux servers into it's Windows server product line, and has been trying to mitigate that impact by a number of means. In the meantime, Novell, whose influence and marketshare in network administration has been massively undermined by Microsoft's Active Directory and .Net products decided to put some of its IP patents up for sale, at which point Apple joined Microsoft and a couple of other firms to purchase those patents. Google was offered a stake in that patent purchase by Microsoft - and demurred in order to try and purchase the patents by themselves.
Next round: Nortel
NORTEL (Canadian networking and telecommunications company) was one of the casualties of the dot Com bust and never recovered. Unable to restructure back into solvency they sold off bits of their company until all that was effectively left was 6,000 patents and applications for patents involving key elements of mobile telecommunication and networking. To the delight of the remaining creditors, those hit the market and were in high demand from a number of companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, EMC, Ericsson, RIM and Sony.
During the bidding as the price went up (Google offered the first stalking horse bid of $900M US, then raised it to nearly $2B, nearly $3B and then over $3B), those bidding companies whose stake was too low to continue recombined with other companies to pool stakes. The winning group was composed of Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, RIM, and Sony. Obviously Google lost as a part of (apparently) the "whining" group.
Lest anyone is willing to take Google's assertion of victimhood too seriously, if you look at Google's pattern of expenditure on buying up smaller companies, they are hardly innocent of trying to bolster their IP: over 100 companies, paying out well in excess of tens of billions of dollars over the course of the last 10 years. They have no intrinsic interest in patents themselves (other than their core technologies in search and ad placement) as they largely just offer services, not tangibles like hardware or software (excepting the Chromes and Android - which however are tied to supporting their core services and not an actual product development stream/profit center as such). However, if you look at each of the companies they bought - each one brought a nice nest of patent IP with them to add to Google's value. Of course they don't want you looking too closely at that "What??!! All the cute little companies we bought had patents and stuff?? Who knew!!"
There is no confusion here Google has been complicit in jacking up the price on patent properties and has participated in doing so. So Drummond is essentially not happy they lost and is now trying to spin it as a conspiracy instead of accepting the blame for his incompetence and bad guidance from Google management.
Google is an advertising company. They're in search so they can deliver ads. They're in email so they can deliver ads. They're in online docs so they can deliver ads.
They knew browsing was moving from computers to mobiles and were afraid they'd lose a way to deliver ads so they bought the company that was developing Android - knowing they'd give it away free just like Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer to get a massive market share and guarantee that they'll be able to deliver ads there too. They HAD to get into mobile.
They have tricked a lot of people into thinking they are a tech company - they are not - their business model and revenue source is advertising.
Do you really want a personal computer in your pocket that was created by an advertising company whose sole existence is dependent upon learning about you so they can target you through marketing? That bleeping crazy.
Perfect post!!! It is why I find it so unbelievably blind by all of the tech-geeks that have made Google their Master and are devout disciples at the Google Church. Apple-Cult indeed!
So Google's argument is invalid because they didn't collude with MSFT to bid on the the Novell patents which were eventually sold to Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle in December 2010 for 450 million, and then went on to not place an individual bid at all?
It pays to read AND comprehend the information at hand. Google opted out of the consortium in order to bid on the Novell patents by themselves. Whether they chose finally to bid or not - the stated intention was to acquire the Novell patents singly for Google, not to share with other companies. Google drove the price up on the Nortel patents by actively participating in the bidding and pushing the price up.
Seems pretty plain and simple to me - Google is fussing about not winning the bids for patent properties, and complaining that others are winning instead of them - "it's not fair - this games sux! Mommmmy! Make them let me wiiiinnnnnn!!!!!"
Daniel, don't you mean Nortel? Novell's patents were sold quite a while ago, to a consortium that included Apple, Microsoft and EMC, if I recall..
It looks as if Daniel during a late night writing marathon let his Spell Checker get the best of him. You are correct the article is about the Northern Telecom's (Nortel) IP acquisition.
I'm glad to see someone is holding Googles feet to the fire, the bunch of crying babies. They did a great job as a search giant but let them enter into the big boys game of design and manufacture and "Billy and Johhny aren't playing fair, mommy (big brother)". If you don't have the creative vision to be innovative and creative, don't complain if others smack your hands for having them in their "IP cookie jar".
It pays to read AND comprehend the information at hand. Google opted out of the consortium in order to bid on the Novell patents by themselves. Whether they chose finally to bid or not - the stated intention was to acquire the Novell patents singly for Google, not to share with other companies. Google drove the price up on the Nortel patents by actively participating in the bidding and pushing the price up.
Seems pretty plain and simple to me - Google is fussing about not winning the bids for patent properties, and complaining that others are winning instead of them - "it's not fair - this games sux! Mommmmy! Make them let me wiiiinnnnnn!!!!!"
Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.
As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.
Everyone here is missing the point. Google needs some patents exclusively for themselves because in the current legal system, the only way you can defend from a patent dispute is to countersue with some patents you own but others don't. If Google joined MSFT/AAPL/Oracle to buy the patents together, then obviously Google can't use these patents to countersue against lawsuits from these companies because they would all own these patents together.
Basically Microsoft would always welcome everyone to purchase patents with them, as long as they themselves still hold some patents that nobody else does. That way, Microsoft can always sue others but others can never sue them (because all the patents other own, they own too through these 'consortiums'). There's really no story here.
Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.
As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.
IP is what innovative and creative companies use to distinguish their products from other products in the same arena. THere is no problem with purchasing IP that others no longer need or because of financial difficulties must sell some of their most desired IP to raise funds to further their business. So if a competitor or someone (IP Trolls not allowed) desiring to enter into that product arena and has the resources to purchase said IP more power to them. We never hear any complains about sports teams buying player contracts or making trades it's about business and being the best.
To google, the only true, honest, pure, noble, and good way to make money is by selling advertising. The idea of one person paying another for creating something useful is twisted and wrong. If you want to get paid for creating something useful, the Right way is to sell advertising space on your useful thing, using google as the middle man between you and the advertiser. That's how God intended. Oh, and if someone copies the thing you made, and also tries to make money off of it by selling advertising using google as the middle man, then it is sinful for you to feel jealousy in your lustful heart. For truly the only value in a thing lies solely in it's ability to maximize the holy ad revenue.
Those things you call "patents" and "copyrights" interfere with the maximization of the holy ad revenue. They are wicked things, devised by wicked men.
... even though they bid $3.14 billion for the same Nortel patents they are criticizing...
I'm of the opinion that they had no real interest in acquiring these patents. Like the bidding on that 700MHz wireless spectrum, they just wanted to drive up the price for whomever did eventually purchase it. If they could get it cheap, great. But it's just as much a win if you can get your opposition to pay too much for something.
I'm of the opinion that they had no real interest in acquiring these patents. Like the bidding on that 700MHz wireless spectrum, they just wanted to drive up the price for whomever did eventually purchase it. If they could get it cheap, great. But it's just as much a win if you can get your opposition to pay too much for something.
If the goal was to get competitors to overbid, I'd call it a failed strategy in this case. With several companies splitting costs, the only one who paid anything substantial was Apple at a estimated $2.1B. I wouldn't consider that an overpayment.
Google probably had bigger plans, which is why, if asked, it did not join in, but it also says something else, if you need them for yourself, probably for the use against Apple and/or Oracle, then doesn't that prove you violated patents?
Comments
The worst part is that the public is too stupid to realize Google is playing the victim, while it's very existence is due to it's software patents.
Google's karma is about gone, who suspects while they're screaming about this, they're figuring out how to buy software patents on the sly?
Karma is never gone. It can quickly change from good to bad depending on what energy you put out into the universe, but it is always there, waiting to bite you in the ass.
Perhaps you meant their mojo is almost gone?...and I would agree.
Happens all the time... I would have added a link for proper citation, but that's just me...
Now added, thanks
I
In a tweet, Smith stated, "Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."
What sort of terms did they offer to Google? What precisely was the offer that Google said no to? We have no information on that.
If the offer was even-steven, Google is rightly being denigrated. If the offer was "you pay most of the money, we get most of the benefit", then Google may have had good reason to refuse. Maybe the offfer was neither of these.
We don't know.
Screw Google. They just should have stuck with search. At first, they were so much better than the competition, they killed them all. Instead of focusing on keeping ahead of those who figured our how to game PageRank, they stuck their fingers into random areas like YouTube and Picasa.
Now, Google searches are mediocre at best (when I started using Google in the 90's, the search results were so good, you'd think they were psychic.) They need to get back to basics instead of being a holding company for a bunch of various businesses.
It's amazing to me that gmail search still can't do partial word match.
Yes, the MS comments were concerning Novell patents sold last year, with the sale (correctly IMO) modified by the DoJ.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-software/8713
It 's not the Nortel patent portfolio that went on the auction block last month. The Google lawyer may have been disingenuous in including that patent sale in his comments. We don't know what the supposed partnership offer terms were, if it was in fact a partnership. Certainly a question that deserves an answer if Google intends to continue that argument.
So there is a story in there of Google turning down a MS offer last year. Just not the story that DED has confusingly weaved. But tho I wouldn't wait on him to admit to his mistake you still gotta love him for his Apple dedication. He doesn't pretend not to be the ultimate fanboy and isn't ashamed to admit it.
NOVELL (the LAN networking company) holds key patents relating to, among others things, Unix. Microsoft entered a "partnership" with Novell while also providing funding via a third party group to SCO to support their litigation against Linux users and developers. The prevailing thought was that Microsoft would try to influence Novell to sell it's rights to Unix so that Microsoft could ostensibly force licensing of Unix code blocks allegedly found in Linux. So far however nothing SCO has brought to court against the defendants has stuck. Other rumors include Microsoft's desire to use parts of Unix to rework the Windows kernel into a stronger more flexible core. Microsoft has seen a strong incursion of Linux servers into it's Windows server product line, and has been trying to mitigate that impact by a number of means. In the meantime, Novell, whose influence and marketshare in network administration has been massively undermined by Microsoft's Active Directory and .Net products decided to put some of its IP patents up for sale, at which point Apple joined Microsoft and a couple of other firms to purchase those patents. Google was offered a stake in that patent purchase by Microsoft - and demurred in order to try and purchase the patents by themselves.
Next round: Nortel
NORTEL (Canadian networking and telecommunications company) was one of the casualties of the dot Com bust and never recovered. Unable to restructure back into solvency they sold off bits of their company until all that was effectively left was 6,000 patents and applications for patents involving key elements of mobile telecommunication and networking. To the delight of the remaining creditors, those hit the market and were in high demand from a number of companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, EMC, Ericsson, RIM and Sony.
During the bidding as the price went up (Google offered the first stalking horse bid of $900M US, then raised it to nearly $2B, nearly $3B and then over $3B), those bidding companies whose stake was too low to continue recombined with other companies to pool stakes. The winning group was composed of Apple, EMC, Ericsson, Microsoft, RIM, and Sony. Obviously Google lost as a part of (apparently) the "whining" group.
Lest anyone is willing to take Google's assertion of victimhood too seriously, if you look at Google's pattern of expenditure on buying up smaller companies, they are hardly innocent of trying to bolster their IP: over 100 companies, paying out well in excess of tens of billions of dollars over the course of the last 10 years. They have no intrinsic interest in patents themselves (other than their core technologies in search and ad placement) as they largely just offer services, not tangibles like hardware or software (excepting the Chromes and Android - which however are tied to supporting their core services and not an actual product development stream/profit center as such). However, if you look at each of the companies they bought - each one brought a nice nest of patent IP with them to add to Google's value. Of course they don't want you looking too closely at that "What??!! All the cute little companies we bought had patents and stuff?? Who knew!!"
There is no confusion here Google has been complicit in jacking up the price on patent properties and has participated in doing so. So Drummond is essentially not happy they lost and is now trying to spin it as a conspiracy instead of accepting the blame for his incompetence and bad guidance from Google management.
Google is an advertising company. They're in search so they can deliver ads. They're in email so they can deliver ads. They're in online docs so they can deliver ads.
They knew browsing was moving from computers to mobiles and were afraid they'd lose a way to deliver ads so they bought the company that was developing Android - knowing they'd give it away free just like Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer to get a massive market share and guarantee that they'll be able to deliver ads there too. They HAD to get into mobile.
They have tricked a lot of people into thinking they are a tech company - they are not - their business model and revenue source is advertising.
Do you really want a personal computer in your pocket that was created by an advertising company whose sole existence is dependent upon learning about you so they can target you through marketing? That bleeping crazy.
Perfect post!!! It is why I find it so unbelievably blind by all of the tech-geeks that have made Google their Master and are devout disciples at the Google Church. Apple-Cult indeed!
Karma is never gone. It can quickly change from good to bad depending on what energy you put out into the universe, .......
There is no such thing as 'good' karma or 'bad' karma. There is only karma, period.
Please don't bastardize/oversimplify basic but important ideas from another religion.
So Google's argument is invalid because they didn't collude with MSFT to bid on the the Novell patents which were eventually sold to Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle in December 2010 for 450 million, and then went on to not place an individual bid at all?
AI even reported on this last year
Maybe AI should follow its own advice.
It pays to read AND comprehend the information at hand. Google opted out of the consortium in order to bid on the Novell patents by themselves. Whether they chose finally to bid or not - the stated intention was to acquire the Novell patents singly for Google, not to share with other companies. Google drove the price up on the Nortel patents by actively participating in the bidding and pushing the price up.
Seems pretty plain and simple to me - Google is fussing about not winning the bids for patent properties, and complaining that others are winning instead of them - "it's not fair - this games sux! Mommmmy! Make them let me wiiiinnnnnn!!!!!"
Daniel, don't you mean Nortel? Novell's patents were sold quite a while ago, to a consortium that included Apple, Microsoft and EMC, if I recall..
It looks as if Daniel during a late night writing marathon let his Spell Checker get the best of him. You are correct the article is about the Northern Telecom's (Nortel) IP acquisition.
I'm glad to see someone is holding Googles feet to the fire, the bunch of crying babies. They did a great job as a search giant but let them enter into the big boys game of design and manufacture and "Billy and Johhny aren't playing fair, mommy (big brother)". If you don't have the creative vision to be innovative and creative, don't complain if others smack your hands for having them in their "IP cookie jar".
It pays to read AND comprehend the information at hand. Google opted out of the consortium in order to bid on the Novell patents by themselves. Whether they chose finally to bid or not - the stated intention was to acquire the Novell patents singly for Google, not to share with other companies. Google drove the price up on the Nortel patents by actively participating in the bidding and pushing the price up.
Seems pretty plain and simple to me - Google is fussing about not winning the bids for patent properties, and complaining that others are winning instead of them - "it's not fair - this games sux! Mommmmy! Make them let me wiiiinnnnnn!!!!!"
Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.
As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.
Basically Microsoft would always welcome everyone to purchase patents with them, as long as they themselves still hold some patents that nobody else does. That way, Microsoft can always sue others but others can never sue them (because all the patents other own, they own too through these 'consortiums'). There's really no story here.
Did Google ever indicate their intention to bid on the Novell patents at all? Perhaps they did, but I don't find it. I only find the recent mention that Google didn't want to join in with Microsoft at one point.
As for the complaints that Google has publicly made since losing out on the Nortel patents, I don't read the intent as looking for sympathy. They instead looking for assurance that the purchasers didn't do so with the aim of using them as the "nuclear weapons" they were compared to, aimed at completely destroying Android alone while leaving everyone else unscathed. That would potentially be illegal and Google would be remiss in not trying to get DoJ clarification before the expected attacks (based on 2nd hand intellectual property) start. Google stockholders would be right in not expecting anything less from counsel at this point.
IP is what innovative and creative companies use to distinguish their products from other products in the same arena. THere is no problem with purchasing IP that others no longer need or because of financial difficulties must sell some of their most desired IP to raise funds to further their business. So if a competitor or someone (IP Trolls not allowed) desiring to enter into that product arena and has the resources to purchase said IP more power to them. We never hear any complains about sports teams buying player contracts or making trades it's about business and being the best.
We never hear any complains about sports teams buying player contracts or making trades it's about business and being the best.
Are you kidding? You never heard of the complaints against the Yankees? the Lakers?
To google, the only true, honest, pure, noble, and good way to make money is by selling advertising. The idea of one person paying another for creating something useful is twisted and wrong. If you want to get paid for creating something useful, the Right way is to sell advertising space on your useful thing, using google as the middle man between you and the advertiser. That's how God intended. Oh, and if someone copies the thing you made, and also tries to make money off of it by selling advertising using google as the middle man, then it is sinful for you to feel jealousy in your lustful heart. For truly the only value in a thing lies solely in it's ability to maximize the holy ad revenue.
Those things you call "patents" and "copyrights" interfere with the maximization of the holy ad revenue. They are wicked things, devised by wicked men.
Sinners, repent!
Brilliant! well said sir.
... even though they bid $3.14 billion for the same Nortel patents they are criticizing...
I'm of the opinion that they had no real interest in acquiring these patents. Like the bidding on that 700MHz wireless spectrum, they just wanted to drive up the price for whomever did eventually purchase it. If they could get it cheap, great. But it's just as much a win if you can get your opposition to pay too much for something.
I'm of the opinion that they had no real interest in acquiring these patents. Like the bidding on that 700MHz wireless spectrum, they just wanted to drive up the price for whomever did eventually purchase it. If they could get it cheap, great. But it's just as much a win if you can get your opposition to pay too much for something.
If the goal was to get competitors to overbid, I'd call it a failed strategy in this case. With several companies splitting costs, the only one who paid anything substantial was Apple at a estimated $2.1B. I wouldn't consider that an overpayment.
Google is a THIEF and a LIAR.
Google probably had bigger plans, which is why, if asked, it did not join in, but it also says something else, if you need them for yourself, probably for the use against Apple and/or Oracle, then doesn't that prove you violated patents?
http://brianshall.com/content/google-are-pussies