I reject the conclusion that using mathematical constants as bid means Google didn't take the auction seriously: clearly they had set out a limit and bid up to it.<p>Is there any evidence that Google chose not to bid in because there was no available mathematical constant between the competitors' highest bid and their internal valuation?
After reading through the articles I've seen so far on this, and looking at the information provided I still do not believe that Google will have to worry about the patents in the Nortel package as much as some are saying. People seem to be forgetting that Google’s Android is software, and the bulk of the Nortel package is hardware related. I'm thinking that Android handset manufacturers have more to worry about considering the types of technologies that are being represented in the Nortel package.<p>That said, as a group they could severely hinder continued success for Microsoft, one of the top spenders from the consortium, which also requires their handsets to continue to sell its Win7 phones. If the total cost of patent royalty cost gets too high they could simply stop supplying Microsoft with phones to put its OS onto.<p>If I was a handset manufacturer I’d side with Google simply based on the numbers. Samsung and Motorola have fairly large stakes in the continued success of Android handsets with LG and HTC not far behind.<p>On a side note how many people have realized that Nortel seems to have just made a bunch of money? I’m basing my numbers on loose numbers that I’ve seen so correct me if I’m wrong, but Nortel was $5.8bln in debt, raise $2.8bln in previous asset sales, and now just made another $4.5bln. That looks to me like a $1.5bln they gain after recouping their debt.