apple, msft, rim and sony win nortel patent bid

[the DRIZZLE]

I hope the regulators block the consortium bid as anti competitive. This sets a very bad precedent that a companies rivals can cooperate to take them down.

 

[akugami]

...Apple is as sue happy as any other company out there. Like I've said, they're the new Microsoft. Trying to exert their dominance over smaller companies and using their might to crush smaller competition. If Microsoft gets in trouble over it, Apple needs to as well.

Yeah, but there is this unfair perception that Apple is the only sue-happy company. The fact is if you look at the mobile industry, everyone is sue happy and Apple is just another in the pack. Which was the point of my comment. The examples you point to are also trademark infringement (different from patents). Unfortunately for the ones Apple is suing, trademarks have a certain "use it or lose it" built in. Apple was surprisingly sued by Apple over the same logos. Except it was Apple Corp suing Apple Computer. If Apple the computer company doesn't actively protect its trademark, they lose it. Examples of trademarks that have lost their trademark status and have become generic trademarks are Aspirin, Butterscotch, Escalator, Zipper, and surprisingly enough Heroin. Obviously this is not a complete list.


Also. Why would regulators block this consortium bid? It's like half of the major players in the mobile phone industry forming this consortium. Not a single company attempting to buy and hoard all available patents.

 

[Pliablemoose]

I think the consortium bid will be approved, and the fact that a group won instead of one company makes it more likely to be approved.

I think the reason Google did those crazy bids is that they realized they wouldn't win and that the other bidders were willing to do nearly anything to keep those patents from Google.

I also think Windows Mobile just got a lot more viable as a major player in the mobile world.

Google did itself in, few companies trust Google and most are unwilling to partner with them because of their business practices. For instance, they could have won the bid, and used the patents to shield it's mobile partners in future patent litigation, they had the cash on hand, it just wasn't worth it to them at the end of the day, and they chose to bid mathematical constants rather than get down to business.

Google is fighting a war on 6 fronts, I suspect it's putting mobile lower on it's priority list than other concerns.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/03/google-six-front-war/

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I think the consortium bid will be approved, and the fact that a group won instead of one company makes it more likely to be approved.

I think the reason Google did those crazy bids is that they realized they wouldn't win and that the other bidders were willing to do nearly anything to keep those patents from Google.

I also think Windows Mobile just got a lot more viable as a major player in the mobile world.

Google did itself in, few companies trust Google and most are unwilling to partner with them because of their business practices. For instance, they could have won the bid, and used the patents to shield it's mobile partners in future patent litigation, they had the cash on hand, it just wasn't worth it to them at the end of the day, and they chose to bid mathematical constants rather than get down to business.

Google is fighting a war on 6 fronts, I suspect it's putting mobile lower on it's priority list than other concerns.

http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/03/google-six-front-war/

Google is going to start complaining that all the "for profit" guys got together to try and kill the "free" OS. IMO this may get some traction. Remember the DOJ was already looking into this when Apple got involved.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Google is going to start complaining that all the "for profit" guys got together to try and kill the "free" OS. IMO this may get some traction. Remember the DOJ was already looking into this when Apple got involved.

I think Google is just about out of karma on that front. That Apple was an approved bidder is an indicator that the regulators will sign off on the sale.

Justice: "Why exactly did you bid pi?"

Google: "Because we're smarter than them."

Justice: "Ok then..."

 

[smartpatrol]

Google is going to start complaining that all the "for profit" guys got together to try and kill the "free" OS. IMO this may get some traction. Remember the DOJ was already looking into this when Apple got involved.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, it's obvious that everybody is out to kill Google. Apple, MS, et al. see Google as a threat, and seek to make Google's products less attractive to use. Google has a relatively small patent portfolio, so there is not much they can do to defend themselves.

On the other hand, I find it hard to see Google as having the moral high ground here. They create products that infringe on others' patents, give these products away "for free", and reap the profits by collecting their users' information and selling it to advertisers. It almost reminds me of websites that host pirated content, and profit from it by displaying ads. What's more, Android device manufacturers are the ones getting sued for infringement, not Google themselves.

It's shaping up to be a very interesting fight in the next couple of years. Thanks to everybody for sharing all these links. It's really fascinating.

 

[BenSkywalker]

You studied 6,000 patents?

It doesn't take much studying to review what the patents are, they are not something that can be used against Android directly and anyone who thinks they are isn't doing any research into the matter. These patents apply to networking infrastructure and related hardware. Seriously, people are making Mount Everest out of a pebble on this one as far as the mobile OS space is concerned. Look up the patents yourselves, it isn't difficult and this poses no threat to Google(Qualcomm, the big four, Samsung and others who make and deal with networking hardware are the ones that need to be concerned).

 

[Pliablemoose]

It doesn't take much studying to review what the patents are, they are not something that can be used against Android directly and anyone who thinks they are isn't doing any research into the matter. These patents apply to networking infrastructure and related hardware. Seriously, people are making Mount Everest out of a pebble on this one as far as the mobile OS space is concerned. Look up the patents yourselves, it isn't difficult and this poses no threat to Google(Qualcomm, the big four, Samsung and others who make and deal with networking hardware are the ones that need to be concerned).

And the reason Google bid >3 billion dollars was?

 

[shabby]

And the reason Google bid >3 billion dollars was?

That's all the change schmidt had in his pocket?

 

[Mopetar]

Google is going to start complaining that all the "for profit" guys got together to try and kill the "free" OS. IMO this may get some traction. Remember the DOJ was already looking into this when Apple got involved.

Yes, but the government has also started to investigate Google as well. Pretending they're somehow completely innocent is naive.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Yes, but the government has also started to investigate Google as well. Pretending they're somehow completely innocent is naive.

That's why I put for profit and free in quotes.

 

[WelshBloke]

You studied 6,000 patents?

I bet he's read more than anyone else here.

 

[Doboji]

The more I think about it, the less likely this is a real threat to Android. If it was I think Google would have bid much higher. I think this is more about LTE than anything else.

 

[poofyhairguy]

And the reason Google bid >3 billion dollars was?

Maybe they had plans to get in the hardware-side, or compete with carriers. They are aggressive.

 

[Pliablemoose]

The logic is that Google could have secired the patents for a war chest to harse trade in other patent deals and to shield it's Android licensees from lawsuits over using Android, currently HTC pays Microsoft $5/device to install Android on them, and there are several other manufacturers Microsoft has strongarmed into paying them, Google has been sitting on the sidelines, allowing Android licensees to take the hit because they were not in a position to cross license anything. The "free" OS is costing companies $.

This patent sale won't mean Android is gone, it will however, as the years pass (it'll take 2-3+) make it much more complicated for manufacturers to use Android as an OS. Apple will likely use the LTE patents to make life more expensive for other phone manufacturers and Microsoft will continue to sue individual Android manufacturers as they have been to collect licensing fees.

Oracle's case is still going and they appear to have a strong one against Google as well.

Google is spread fairly thin, and I suspect they're going to focus on search, social, browsers, and enterprise to collect data, and may well abandon Android or allow it to become enormously complicated/expensive for manufacturers to actually sell because of the licensing issues.

IIRC, Micrsoft was charging $15 for each copy of Windows Phone 7, so the costs don't have to rise much to make it more profitable to just pick another OS than Android.

Add to that an unsettled platform that developers have questions about, that already doesn't make as much money for them as iOS apps, and things start to change...

There has been speculation of Google either buying Motorola for it's patents or cutting some other deal with them to provide an umbrella for the other phone manufacturers. They could buy Moto for not much more than 4.5B, and get their patents.

 

[zerocool84]

Sorry but I think it's ridiculous for anyone to even say that Google would abandon Android any time soon. It's the world's #1 smartphone platform and Google makes tons of money off the advertising with the built-in Google services.

 

[tommo123]

google can't abandon android. long term it could be a fatal blow. more and more people are getting smartphones, more and more people will use these over PCs for basic/casual web use. that = less and less people using googles services.

 

[smartpatrol]

google can't abandon android. long term it could be a fatal blow. more and more people are getting smartphones, more and more people will use these over PCs for basic/casual web use. that = less and less people using googles services.

So what happens when Android becomes more expensive to use than Windows Phone due to patent licensing fees? What happens when Android becomes too risky because of the threat of lawsuits from MS, Apple, Oracle, etc.?

 

[WelshBloke]

Its pretty sad that Apple and Microsoft feel that this is the only way to compete with Android.

How about competing with a better product, at least that way the consumer wins as well.

Every time a big patent issue is brought up it just goes to show how utterly retarded the technology patent system is. The idea is that the patent system is supposed to reward research and push innovation, not stifle progress and make lawyers even richer.

 

[tommo123]

So what happens when Android becomes more expensive to use than Windows Phone due to patent licensing fees? What happens when Android becomes too risky because of the threat of lawsuits from MS, Apple, Oracle, etc.?

then they do math. which is more expensive? helping the android manufs out, or losing all that revenue from search and potentially (long term) losing enough mind share to have even desktop users move away from google. (microsoft ran video site competes with youtube, a live account to activate a windows mobile phone to get people to move away from gmail).

google could dissapear entirely within 5 years if the worse happen. it weird but it could. just look at nokia. could be bought out a year from now. 4-5 years ago it dominated!

things change fast and usually the big players stumble but are big enough to survive and recover. i have no doubt that i can get an android phone in 2 years time.

 

[Pliablemoose]

then they do math. which is more expensive? helping the android manufs out, or losing all that revenue from search and potentially (long term) losing enough mind share to have even desktop users move away from google. (microsoft ran video site competes with youtube, a live account to activate a windows mobile phone to get people to move away from gmail).

google could dissapear entirely within 5 years if the worse happen. it weird but it could. just look at nokia. could be bought out a year from now. 4-5 years ago it dominated!

things change fast and usually the big players stumble but are big enough to survive and recover. i have no doubt that i can get an android phone in 2 years time.

Google is rumored to be compensating HTC for it's fees paid to Microsoft for Android.

 

[Mopetar]

Its pretty sad that Apple and Microsoft feel that this is the only way to compete with Android.

How about competing with a better product, at least that way the consumer wins as well.

Why is it that every time some company does something like this, people crawl out of the woodwork with these half-baked conspiracy theories when there are plenty of other reasons why these companies may have purchased the patents? No one has sued anyone yet, but for some reason people are acting like it's doom day.

As the Cringely article pointed out, many companies may have been involved just to reduce or remove licensing fees, which saves a lot of money when you produce tens of millions of devices every year.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Why is it that every time some company does something like this, people crawl out of the woodwork with these half-baked conspiracy theories when there are plenty of other reasons why these companies may have purchased the patents? No one has sued anyone yet, but for some reason people are acting like it's doom day.

As the Cringely article pointed out, many companies may have been involved just to reduce or remove licensing fees, which saves a lot of money when you produce tens of millions of devices every year.

They are buying them at a premium to the present value of the future cash flows they will generate. By definition they have a strategic rationale for doing so.

 

[Mopetar]

I'm not even sure if it's that much of a premium. It's likely that within the next two years, Apple will introduce iPhones and iPads using LTE technology. By this time they'll be making at least 100 million phones per year, and probably as many as 25 million 4G-enabled iPads per year. After two years of production, that would be a quarter billion devices using that technology. At that point they would be saving money assuming that the licensing fees are normally more than $8 per device. After four years, assuming no further growth in the rate of device sales, it would be down to $4 per device.

LTE is probably going to be around for a while. The speeds it provides are about an order of magnitude better than most 3G offerings in the US. The longer it sticks around, the better the investment becomes for Apple. Over a long enough period of time, it might have even been feasible for Apple and the other consortium companies to pay twice as much.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Apple will also be generating revenue by licensing and cross licensing the patents. They'll be great bargaining chips down the road as well.