Motorola purchase gives Google 17K issued, 7.5K filed patents

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 63
    cloudgazercloudgazer Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    Nortel's LTE patents are what Moto doesn't have, and with the next auction coming up Google's position for them will be diddly squat and they knew so they bought Moto Mobility instead. Shareholders will be swallowing a bitter pill in a few months and Apple investors will continue to reap the rewards for Apple's expertise technically and legally.



    Google knew it couldn't stop Apple or Microsoft but had to show some effort of being still viable so Moto Mobility was their only option.



    It appears some investors are dumping GOOG stock as it's down > $10/share today.



    That's nuts - why would Google pay 12BN for moto's patents if they're worth less than Nortels and not bid that high for Nortel? Whatever else, clearly Google believes it's getting something of value from Moto, though they may turn out to be wrong.
  • Reply 42 of 63
    jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    The difference is that Apple bought the Nortel patents for future products.



    Google buys patents to protect shipping products.



    My how apple coloured glasses you wear. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? You mean Nortel only researched and patented LTE-related inventions?
  • Reply 43 of 63
    Thousands and thousands of patents.



    I wonder if the majority of them are as vaguely worded as the ones we've seen connected with lawsuits.
  • Reply 44 of 63
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


    If nothing else, this should put to rest any notion that Google was not seriously after the Nortel patents or that they are not committed to Android. Only time will tell whether this move turns out to be the right one or too expensive, but you cannot say Larry Page was timid at the switch when he felt cornered.



    I don't anyone suggested that Google was not serious about the Nortel patents. You don't offer "Pi billion dollars" if you're not serious.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    The problem for Google is that no one wants Moto's hardware business w/o the IP.



    That's not true. For someone like RIM or HTC or Samsung, the hardware business would be very attractive if they get a license to use the IP. They wouldn't need to own the IP to be interested.



    Furthermore, there are a bunch of products in the portfolio which don't involve Apple at all - baby monitors, home phone systems, and lots of other stuff that's completely unrelated.
  • Reply 45 of 63
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chabig View Post


    Yes it is. And in the Google-Oracle lawsuit, Google tried to argue that Android revenue was zero because they give it away for free and therefore they should not be liable for any penalties. Well if Android generates no revenue for Google, how is Motorola Mobility worth $12.5 billion to them? I think they have just given Oracle's attorneys a big bone.



    I think Apple will go directly after Google now that they have unwisely inserted themselves into this legal tangle.
  • Reply 46 of 63
    Breaking News: Microsoft announces $ 15 Billion counter offer to buy Motorola
  • Reply 47 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Why do nearly every one of your posts use colors and/or huge type? The rest of us get by quite nicely without them. You seem like you're begging for attention.
  • Reply 48 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Why do nearly every one of your posts use colors and/or huge type? The rest of us get by quite nicely without them. You seem like you're begging for attention.



    oh im sorry did i offend you?
  • Reply 49 of 63
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elian Gonzalez View Post


    Thousands and thousands of patents.



    I wonder if the majority of them are as vaguely worded as the ones we've seen connected with lawsuits.



    This is the huge giggle out of all this....



    Google spends ONE BILLION dollars to buy a bot load of patents from IBM.

    Google spends TWELVE BILLION dollars (buying mot mobile) to acquire a boat load more patents.



    And all this because Google can't compete in the technology marketplace without them...



    NOW ... What's the purpose of patents again? To protect the inventor? Yea, I'm just not seeing it. A small-time inventor today doesn't stand a chance of truly profiting from his or her invention patented or not. The best they could possibly hope for is someone buy them out for chump-change then it'll be Engulf-n-Devour ltd. who will profit handsomely from the inventors hard work.



    Funny thing is thats the BEST thing that could happen to the inventor... Chances are they will get sue into oblivian once they make some patent whores radar.



    Reform? I think Googles spending answers that question quite clearly.
  • Reply 50 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post


    oh im sorry did i offend you?



    Not at all. But if you wish to be taken seriously, you're going about it wrong.
  • Reply 51 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Not at all. But if you wish to be taken seriously, you're going about it wrong.



    oh i'm sorry i was being sarcastic.
  • Reply 52 of 63
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,387member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post


    oh i'm sorry i was being sarcastic.



    Just offering some advice from someone with quite a lot of experience dealing with forum members at several different sites. Whether it's welcome advice is up to you.
  • Reply 53 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    That is a lot of money for a "free" OS that is "open."



    Don't see how that applies...but okay....sure...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac.World View Post


    I'd like to know what patents motorola has relating to smartphones, especially patents that relate to LTE or 4G?



    On the plus side, the Droid series phones can be called Android phones now and it will actually mean something.



    Droid is licensed by Werizon, not motorola, from LucasArts



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post


    does apple use any of these?? or is SJ pushing google to spend like a drunk sailor



    I'm pretty sure they do, most of them are probably basics. "Method for connected to another mobile device after dialing a series of numbers blah blah blah"



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by shompa View Post


    Exactly.



    I wonder if Google has some self criticism.

    Instead of buying Android and clone iPhone, wouldn't it have been cheaper to invent an own system? Palm WebOS is a great example.



    They bought Android and it is hardly a clone of the iPhone, stop being disingenuous from it's original inception to now it has indeed become more icon based than it was before (and please don't bring up that damn BB-style prototype as that was only one prototype, Android was always meant to be used on a multitude of form-factors, all touch being one of them) But yea, Android was inspired heavily by the success of iPhone...no doubt about it...but a clone? let's be real. Apple ushered in a new Market...they cannot be the only player there.



    WebOS was a response to Apple iOS and Google Android...



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by stargatesg1 View Post


    Google's next version of Android code name Ice Cream Sandwich is not open source. Google is trying to compete with apple to create a unique device that will work properly with the hardware and their Android platform



    Call it a hunch but something tells me you pulled that out of your butt...



    The necessary Open Source parts of Honeycomb have been released in accordance to the license. Yes people are still waiting for the full 3.0 Source code but I think Google is smart to hold on to it to avoid second rate OEMs dirtying up the name of Android's latest system by forcing it onto phones. If ICS does not get released open source then you may have a point. But at this point stop assuming.



    Also Google has expressed no desire to compete exclusively on the hardware front. I don't see how this changes anything.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    The problem for Google is that no one wants Moto's hardware business w/o the IP.



    True. But at this point we can only base what we know on what was said.



    There's a lot of assuming at this point.
  • Reply 54 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


    This is the huge giggle out of all this....



    Google spends ONE BILLION dollars to buy a bot load of patents from IBM.

    Google spends TWELVE BILLION dollars (buying mot mobile) to acquire a boat load more patents.



    And all this because Google can't compete in the technology marketplace without them...



    NOW ... What's the purpose of patents again? To protect the inventor? Yea, I'm just not seeing it. A small-time inventor today doesn't stand a chance of truly profiting from his or her invention patented or not. The best they could possibly hope for is someone buy them out for chump-change then it'll be Engulf-n-Devour ltd. who will profit handsomely from the inventors hard work.



    Funny thing is thats the BEST thing that could happen to the inventor... Chances are they will get sue into oblivian once they make some patent whores radar.



    Reform? I think Googles spending answers that question quite clearly.





    Just a question...honest one.



    If you were a small time inventor, with a new invention that more than likely infringes on patents owned by a few big corporations who would you be more wary of:



    Google

    Apple

    Microsoft



    ???
  • Reply 55 of 63
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    Just a question...honest one.



    If you were a small time inventor, with a new invention that more than likely infringes on patents owned by a few big corporations who would you be more wary of:



    Google

    Apple

    Microsoft



    ???





    Google the COPY-CAT company of course.



    Over the years, Google f6cked or tried to f6ck dozens of smaller & larger companies by copying their products and releasing it's own version.



    Yelp, Facebook, Twitter, (Google buzz/wave/g+), Youtube (Google Video), iPhone, iPad, Groupon (Google offers), Paypal( Google checkout), Java, Skyhook, etc.
  • Reply 56 of 63
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FriedLobster View Post


    Breaking News: Microsoft announces $15 Billion counter offer to buy Motorola



    Wanna bet that MS does just that. Their cash and short term investments is $53B.



    Ballmer is desperate and even if he wasn't, just to make GOOG pay $15.5B would be worth while.
  • Reply 57 of 63
    davegeedavegee Posts: 2,765member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    Just a question...honest one.



    If you were a small time inventor, with a new invention that more than likely infringes on patents owned by a few big corporations who would you be more wary of:



    Google

    Apple

    Microsoft



    ???



    All of the above and a boatload more...



    Any established technology company could crush and devour some pesky start-up inventor (patent or not) and in the end the lowly inventor would be lucky to get bought-out for a pittance. Fact is, all the inventor would likely get for his or her time and hard work would be a big fat legal bill and be forced into bankruptcy.



    Some may drag out the name Robert Kearns and his victory over the auto industry (Ford, Chrysler,etc) on his intermittent wiper patent. Yes! Robert was successful to the tune of $30+ million dollars. However the fight took years* and cost him his family in the process (reportedly his wife left him due to the stress of the trials).



    *how many years you ask? 1964-1982+



    Could you imagine being able to endure that amount of time (and money)? Many people would have given up and/or gone bankrupt over that number of years. So yes VICTORY but at what cost?



    It should be said that awarded patents are ONLY designed to protect the inventor who has enough money and time to outwit and outlast a corporation trying to steamroll them otherwise a patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
  • Reply 58 of 63
    srangersranger Posts: 473member
    All of the big boys have decided that lawsuits are the way to go into the future.... They ALL asked for it and now they have it.... I suspect that we will see more consolidation....
  • Reply 59 of 63
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    There is no way that WebOS doesn't infringe on someone's patents. A smartphone is too complex not too. The only reason no one is looking is that WebOS has not sold enough phones to be considered a threat.



    Palm was one of the first companies working in this space. I recall seeing a Palm patent that covered using a light sensor to dim a screen. I don't know whether Apple has a license or not, but that gives you an idea of the firepower that might exist in the HP portfolio. Google on the other hand has a pile of patents related to snooping around in people's emails.
  • Reply 60 of 63
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


    All of the above and a boatload more...



    Any established technology company could crush and devour some pesky start-up inventor (patent or not) and in the end the lowly inventor would be lucky to get bought-out for a pittance. Fact is, all the inventor would likely get for his or her time and hard work would be a big fat legal bill and be forced into bankruptcy.



    Some may drag out the name Robert Kearns and his victory over the auto industry (Ford, Chrysler,etc) on his intermittent wiper patent. Yes! Robert was successful to the tune of $30+ million dollars. However the fight took years* and cost him his family in the process (reportedly his wife left him due to the stress of the trials).



    *how many years you ask? 1964-1982+



    Could you imagine being able to endure that amount of time (and money)? Many people would have given up and/or gone bankrupt over that number of years. So yes VICTORY but at what cost?



    It should be said that awarded patents are ONLY designed to protect the inventor who has enough money and time to outwit and outlast a corporation trying to steamroll them otherwise a patent isn't worth the paper it's printed on.



    Actually, the Kearns situation doesn't happen today because we now have a market for these types of patents. The patents get bought up and enforced by "non-practicing entities" (aka patent trolls). I like the more descriptive term "patent litigation investors" rather than Trolls. Everyone thinks trolls are evil. However, I think they are a necessary evil created by a more evil and sinister corporate America that tried to subvert the patent system.



    On several occasions I have pointed out to this forum that the trolls would go away if corporations bought the technology at a reasonable price. It would save a lot of money by cutting out the middle men (i.e., the lawyers and trolls). It is such a simple solution, it drives me nuts that it isn't discussed more openly.
Sign In or Register to comment.