Android makers "unfazed" by Google's Motorola deal, but patents judged weak
Android licensees say they are making no changes to their product strategy following Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility, preferring instead to view the deal as a protection from patent infringement claims by Apple and others despite reports noting that Motorola has little value left in its patent portfolio.
A report by Reuters at the IFA consumer electronics fair being held in Berlin, Germany said that interviews with representatives of Android licensees Acer, Sony Ericsson and HTC painted a unanimously optimistic view Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
The report said licensees continue prefer to view the acquisition as a "move to protect the software from legal attacks and not a competitive threat in the marketplace," and stated that "the Motorola acquisition will give Google access to one of the mobile phone industry's largest patent libraries."
The "legal attacks" against Google's Android include efforts by Microsoft and Nokia to force Android licenses to pay for patented technology infringed upon by Android, as well as efforts by Apple and Oracle to block sales of Android devices entirely, due to infringement of technical and design implementation patents.
Motorola Mobility patents "crap"
However, in a video interview published by Bloomberg West, Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-Cam Inc, called Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility "an immense mistake for two reasons."
Martin stated that "what they bought is crap, because at the end of the day Motorola sold off its good assets. Back in the early years, Motorola sold off some MPEG patents to GE in a securitization deal. After that, they took a bunch of the Freescale patents and sold those off." Martin then said that Google had actually increased its patent vulnerability, "painting a target" on itself with the deal.
An independent report by FOSSPatents blogger Florian Mueller noted that that 7 of Motorola Mobility's 18 patents that are thought to be relevant to Android and smartphones (of the 25,000 patents and pending patent filings the company sits on) were previously 'declared essential to industry standards,' and therefore restricted by F/RAND commitments that limit them from being raised defensively as valid counterclaims against the infringement of Apple's implementation patents.
Mueller referred to Martin's comments on Bloomberg West before adding, "And the relatively best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to F/RAND commitments."
Mueller said that claims that Motorola's Google-acquired patents are "so powerful that they can protect Android as a whole" are "completely off base," and described those making that claim as "issuing statements that blow the strategic value of MMI's patents completely out of proportion," adding that "Googlorola won't help Samsung."
Android needs protection; licensees not entirely unfazed
Nikolaus Scheurer, the head of product marketing at Sony Ericsson, was cited by Reuters as saying, "It is important for us to protect the Android ecosystem," while adding that "Google confirmed that this [acquisition] is not making Google a hardware manufacturer," a belief that runs counter to comments by Google itself that its acquisition of Motorola Mobility would, among other things, allow it to pursue new hardware products it can't currently.
"I assume the global market share of Motorola is somewhere around 15 percent in Android," Scheurer said. "I think everybody would agree that it does not really make sense to jeopardize 85 percent of your business."
Sony Ericsson previously weathered through the collapse of Symbian, lead and eventually taken over by Nokia, and then lived through Microsoft's attempts to compete with its own Windows Mobile licensees with its failed KIN phones (after destroying its PlaysForSure partners with the introduction of the Zune).
Sony Ericsson remains a licensee of Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, although it has not introduced any new WP7 phones since Microsoft aligned the future of WP7 with its close partnership with Nokia.
HTC continues to make both Android and WP7 phones, introducing new WP7 models even as it also pays Microsoft for patent royalties involved in its production of Android phones. Acer has also demonstrated new WP7 models.
Samsung, which Reuters did not mention in the report, is the largest Android licensee and has gone on record making the same supportive public comments about the Motorola Mobility acquisition by Google. However, the company was also reported to have enacted a top down push to focus on software development of its own, including its alternative Bada platform.
A report by Reuters at the IFA consumer electronics fair being held in Berlin, Germany said that interviews with representatives of Android licensees Acer, Sony Ericsson and HTC painted a unanimously optimistic view Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
The report said licensees continue prefer to view the acquisition as a "move to protect the software from legal attacks and not a competitive threat in the marketplace," and stated that "the Motorola acquisition will give Google access to one of the mobile phone industry's largest patent libraries."
The "legal attacks" against Google's Android include efforts by Microsoft and Nokia to force Android licenses to pay for patented technology infringed upon by Android, as well as efforts by Apple and Oracle to block sales of Android devices entirely, due to infringement of technical and design implementation patents.
Motorola Mobility patents "crap"
However, in a video interview published by Bloomberg West, Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-Cam Inc, called Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility "an immense mistake for two reasons."
Martin stated that "what they bought is crap, because at the end of the day Motorola sold off its good assets. Back in the early years, Motorola sold off some MPEG patents to GE in a securitization deal. After that, they took a bunch of the Freescale patents and sold those off." Martin then said that Google had actually increased its patent vulnerability, "painting a target" on itself with the deal.
An independent report by FOSSPatents blogger Florian Mueller noted that that 7 of Motorola Mobility's 18 patents that are thought to be relevant to Android and smartphones (of the 25,000 patents and pending patent filings the company sits on) were previously 'declared essential to industry standards,' and therefore restricted by F/RAND commitments that limit them from being raised defensively as valid counterclaims against the infringement of Apple's implementation patents.
Mueller referred to Martin's comments on Bloomberg West before adding, "And the relatively best ones MMI has -- which wasn't discussed on Bloomberg -- are subject to F/RAND commitments."
Mueller said that claims that Motorola's Google-acquired patents are "so powerful that they can protect Android as a whole" are "completely off base," and described those making that claim as "issuing statements that blow the strategic value of MMI's patents completely out of proportion," adding that "Googlorola won't help Samsung."
Android needs protection; licensees not entirely unfazed
Nikolaus Scheurer, the head of product marketing at Sony Ericsson, was cited by Reuters as saying, "It is important for us to protect the Android ecosystem," while adding that "Google confirmed that this [acquisition] is not making Google a hardware manufacturer," a belief that runs counter to comments by Google itself that its acquisition of Motorola Mobility would, among other things, allow it to pursue new hardware products it can't currently.
"I assume the global market share of Motorola is somewhere around 15 percent in Android," Scheurer said. "I think everybody would agree that it does not really make sense to jeopardize 85 percent of your business."
Sony Ericsson previously weathered through the collapse of Symbian, lead and eventually taken over by Nokia, and then lived through Microsoft's attempts to compete with its own Windows Mobile licensees with its failed KIN phones (after destroying its PlaysForSure partners with the introduction of the Zune).
Sony Ericsson remains a licensee of Microsoft's Windows Phone 7, although it has not introduced any new WP7 phones since Microsoft aligned the future of WP7 with its close partnership with Nokia.
HTC continues to make both Android and WP7 phones, introducing new WP7 models even as it also pays Microsoft for patent royalties involved in its production of Android phones. Acer has also demonstrated new WP7 models.
Samsung, which Reuters did not mention in the report, is the largest Android licensee and has gone on record making the same supportive public comments about the Motorola Mobility acquisition by Google. However, the company was also reported to have enacted a top down push to focus on software development of its own, including its alternative Bada platform.
Comments
After that, they took a bunch of the Freescale patents and sold those off."
Apple bought them ...
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...freescale.html
in a video interview published by Bloomberg West, Dr. David Martin, founder and chairman of M-Cam Inc, called Google's $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility "an immense mistake
I'm not surprised to hear this. However, Larry could not of made the monumental mistake of buying worthless patents - he's not that stupid...or is he?
Naw.
So if Larry knew the patents were worthless, that they would not protect the Axis of Copycats, just why did he buy Motorola?
Android phone makers are in denial that Google will not be pouring all the best Droidy goodness in their new pet Motorola. I doubt Moto will have the design and engineering skills to match the other handsets already out there.
please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.
Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.
In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)
I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.
Google needed to protect it's Android OHA partners, so they bought one of the same OHA partners (that needed the same protection).
The whole of Androidland is now protected??
Do those OHA guys have any sense at all?
"I assume the global market share of Motorola is somewhere around 15 percent in Android," Scheurer said. "I think everybody would agree that it does not really make sense to jeopardize 85 percent of your business."
Sounds more like a thinly veiled threat.
Of course, that isn't 85% of Google's business: their business is the minuscule slice of ad revenue they get from those phones. Selling phones only has to look better than that teeny tiny, virtually insignificant amount of ad revenue for Google to switch gears.
But that also misses a simple fact. There's no question that Google is getting into the hardware business since they just bought a hardware company and announced they're going to keep making hardware. The assertion that it will be run as a separate business is meaningless. It's utterly bizarre to see people talking as if Google moving into hardware isn't already a done deal.
The question is, What kind of advantages will Motorola have over other Android vendors when it's part of Google? The main one is that Motorola will be subsidised. Motorola was losing money. Now it doesn't matter. Motorola is the only manufacturer that will be subsidised by Google in terms of cold, hard cash. That alone makes it massively favoured over Samsung and HTC. There's also perception. Even if Motorola phones won't feature any Google branding, they'll surely be regarded as the "true" Android phones. Will they use "pure" Android? Will Google push to make sure they always get timely updates? Won't it make it more difficult for Samsung, HTC, et al, to differentiate themselves when one company is seen as the "legitimate" Android vendor?
Apple bought them ...
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...freescale.html
Yes they did and Google should have done their homework.
I'll said it several days ago and I'll say it again, for $12.5 billion, Google could of hired the top 100 programmers in the world and cleverly innovated their way top the top of the heap (metaphorically) but nooo, they continue to want copy Apple. How sad for a once admired Google.
I'm not surprised to hear this. However, Larry could not of made the monumental mistake of buying worthless patents - he's not that stupid...or is he?
Naw.
So if Larry knew the patents were worthless, that they would not protect the Axis of Copycats, just why did he buy Motorola?
Quite a large number of the best of the best work at Apple and are paid handsomely for their efforts.
Quite a large number of the best of the best work at Apple and are paid handsomely for their efforts.
I thought of you when I read this:
reports noting that Motorola has little value left in its patent portfolio.
Android phone makers are in denial that Google will not be pouring all the best Droidy goodness in their new pet Motorola. I doubt Moto will have the design and engineering skills to match the other handsets already out there.
Motorola Atrix, the original droid. Stop putting moto down, as far as android phones go I think they are no better or worse than the competition.
please tell me how Google closing the code will give them more money.
Please remember the following:
1) Google makes money using eyeballs
2) HTC and Samsung both have existing deals with WP7, which uses Bing.
3) If Google pissed off HTC and Samsung it means far fewer eyeballs.
In order to make a "closed" android more attractive to them than "open" android currently is, Google would need to spend massive amounts of money improving developer experience for the platform (wait.. that would benefit them MORE if they were "open") . They would have to invest a ton of money into hardware design. (which they can do without closing android off), and they would need to find some way to make current android users all desire a higher priced "premium" motorola device (unlikely)
I don't doubt that google will do SOMETHING with motorola phones, but the whole "Google's going to close android" argument smacks too much of people assuming that Google thinks it can become Apple. The only company that really has a chance at "competing" with Apple in ecosystem terms is Amazon.
I agree with this BUT the problem is THIS:
This,
Sounds more like a thinly veiled threat.
Of course, that isn't 85% of Google's business: their business is the minuscule slice of ad revenue they get from those phones. Selling phones only has to look better than that teeny tiny, virtually insignificant amount of ad revenue for Google to switch gears.
But that also misses a simple fact. There's no question that Google is getting into the hardware business since they just bought a hardware company and announced they're going to keep making hardware. The assertion that it will be run as a separate business is meaningless. It's utterly bizarre to see people talking as if Google moving into hardware isn't already a done deal.
The question is, What kind of advantages will Motorola have over other Android vendors when it's part of Google? The main one is that Motorola will be subsidised. Motorola was losing money. Now it doesn't matter. Motorola is the only manufacturer that will be subsidised by Google in terms of cold, hard cash. That alone makes it massively favoured over Samsung and HTC. There's also perception. Even if Motorola phones won't feature any Google branding, they'll surely be regarded as the "true" Android phones. Will they use "pure" Android? Will Google push to make sure they always get timely updates? Won't it make it more difficult for Samsung, HTC, et al, to differentiate themselves when one company is seen as the "legitimate" Android vendor?
This Motorola acquisition is a tight walk. Not only are Motorola's debts and profit losses Google's debts and losses, but Motorola is the only android handset maker that has built in legal indemnity for Android.
They may need to go back to that whole "adult supervision" thing...
Reminds me of a discussion Orlando and I had about this deal a couple of weeks back:
Did Google seriously not "war room" all these scenarios when they decided to buy MMI in the first place?
There is an alternative. The real world is unprepared for Larry. The Motorola deal is either brilliant or insane. There is no middle ground.
Whatever Larry Page's next move turns out to be, It had better be brilliant.
I'm voting for whatever choice is "not brilliant". :P
Quite a large number of the best of the best work at Apple and are paid handsomely for their efforts.
Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html
I'll said it several days ago and I'll say it again, for $12.5 billion, Google could of hired the top 100 programmers in the world and cleverly innovated their way top the top of the heap (metaphorically) but nooo, they continue to want copy Apple. How sad for a once admired Google.
Umm.. sorry but Google's on the hook for copying stuff from Sun/Oracle, not Apple (note that Apple isn't suing Google for patent/copyright infringement at the moment). Samsung and HTC are the ones on the hook for copying Apple.
Also, Google already effectively has "the top 100 programmers in the world." In fact, Apple isn't really all that well known in the community for "programmers" though they do have a strong team. They're known for their best-in-class industrial designers, and for their interface designers. Essentially---and super-simplified, Apple gets the best RISD grads while Google gets the best MIT grads.
Umm.. sorry but Google's on the hook for copying stuff from Sun/Oracle, not Apple (note that Apple isn't suing Google for patent/copyright infringement at the moment).
Give them time.
Perhaps not paid as handsomely as you think. . .
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/pres...123373858.html
Ah, so they work for Apple and turn out their excellent products because ... they love what they do? They like being part of a winning team that innovates?
And all your friends are leery. Never trust the keeper of the bridge who's honour possesses no spine.