That does not mean anything. Yes MS may have asked Google to partner with them to buy the patents but no-one knows what the terms were. A good attorney can make an agreement that allows Google to be sued on the patents even if they are co-owners. Or the agreement may say that any Android phone manufacturer can be sued on the patents by Microsoft, and Google does not have the power to give those manufacturers licenses.<p>So an undisclosed offer made in private does not mean much. If Microsoft had made their offer public they may use it to make a point, but as things stand now this supposed offer is best ignored.<p>PS: I should also note that this "we made them a generous offer and they refused" statement is a trick often used by PR people and politicians to muddy the water.
Ex-MSFT employee here, enjoying the fact that I can comment on HN on MSFT legal affairs for once :).<p>I love Frank.X.Shaw's move here (hiring him from Waggner Edstorm was one of MSFT's best moves). Google is essentially trying to spin a situation where they were invited to be a part of a bid as a anti-competitive move. I'm slightly surprised that Google didn't see this coming - Drummond must have known that any public spat would lead to MSFT digging up any email threads between the two companies, especially those which make it seem like MSFT is trying to reach out to Google.
I am confused. Why would Google want to jointly bid on patents in a way they could not be used to protect itself and its partners from Microsoft?<p>Microsoft's council can't be so naïve.<p>Edit: by refusing to participate, Google indicated that either they wanted the patents in order to be able to defend against Microsoft or that they didn't find them worth the effort. The proposal could pretty much be the way Microsoft used to measure Google's interest and intentions
The Microsoft tweets seem to (probably intentionally) ignore the obvious reason why Google would want the patents — to create a mutually-assured destruction scenario that convinces Apple and Microsoft to get off its back. Sharing the patents with Apple and Microsoft would keep Google at a disadvantage just like not having them would.
Google seems to have one foot in the water and the other out. They lose their credibility either way. They bid a high amount ($3.14bil) in the Nortel bid and went alone by their choosing in the Novell bid. Their press is just spinning the story AND their strategy based on unforeseen outcomes. I get it that they are using patents just as leverage to keep Android free or as cheap as possible. In the end however, they are competing with other mobile platforms for market share based on the best combination of price, quality, and user experience. It's anyone's game and as long as it's legal, there are no rules.<p>Edited the Nortel and Novell discrepancy.
Mobile companies such as HTC, Motorla and Samsung are being forced to pay Microsoft licensing fees for their Android phones because of patents Microsoft owns. Google needs its own arsenal of patents in order to prevent the situation from getting worse. How is Android supposed to prosper if mobile companies are being forced to pay Microsoft to use it? Owning the patents jointly with Microsoft gives Google nothing to use against Microsoft, therefore defeating the whole purpose of owning the patents.
I think the take home message of all of this, more than ever, is that software patents are damaging to innovation and an overall detriment to the industry.<p>These companies should be competing on performance and features, not with lawyers over whether a linked list is an innovation (example taken out of context, but some of these patents are no better than the multiply linked list patent covered a year ago).
"Sorry Google but we offered to collude <i>with</i> you and you turned us down, so we had to collude <i>against</i> you"<p>Is this how rotten Microsoft has become? They don't even grasp what they are being accused of.<p>EDIT: I really wish people would reply with their opinion rather than just downvoting. Or at least do both. I thought it was an interesting observation that I haven't seen anyone make: Google complains about Microsoft's ethics and they respond with a point about strategy. Do they even understand the difference?
Google says the group of major players colluding together in a joint bid for patents is anti-competitive. Google did not want to join this anti-competitive collusion. How is this inconsistent, shocking, or bad?<p>Couldn't the simple explanation be "If we join forces with Microsoft and Apple to jointly buy these patents, the DoJ is going to come down on all of us for illegal anti-competitive behavior"? Why are people acting like Google did something wrong by not wanting to join the cartel that they are now publicly saying is anti-competitive and that the DoJ should impose limits on?
One interesting possibility: Google planned to only use the patents defensively but the joint bid would have required them participating in offensive action, which they refuse to do.
Google's punch was related to Nortel Patents, Microsoft's misfired missile carried <i>Novell</i> patents as the warhead.<p>"Google says we bought Novell patents to keep them from Google. Really? We asked them to bid jointly with us. They said no."<p>So Google may still have a point that Nortel patents were gobbled up by Apple and MSFT to strangle Android just as the Novell ones are.
Doesn't this suggest that MS tried to organize a cartel to put a lock on the wireless industry? The major players all coming together to purchase patent portfolios and agreeing not to sue <i>each other</i> over it sure smells like an anti-trust violation.
In two large organizations A and B, how likely is it that someone at B can find an email from a person at A to a person at B that appears to contradict some assertion by some other person at A?
These behind the scenes emails raise a question in my mind. On what other issues these companies are covertly colluding with each other which we don't know. One obvious thing could be some kind of silent agreement on not competing with each other on employee salaries etc. to keep them in check. There could be more like trying not to increase valuations of startups they are trying to acquire.
> Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.<p>I think that 'instead of' should be a 'As well as'.
Google is going to need to hire a lot more lawyers these days... anti-trust inquiries against themselves, weak patent portfolio... Gonna be really interesting to watch.
anyone remember when AAPL claimed "we just wish to protect our innovation" (i think it was about the HTC suit).<p>well, how does buying novel/nortel patents protect your innovation? how does joining with MSFT to keep patents away from GOOG protect your innovation?
I asked about this on Twitter to deaf ears. Isn't Microsoft mixing up Novell and Nortel? Even if Microsoft did offer to partner on the Novell patents, the accusations are being levied more directly at the Nortel buy by Microsoft, Apple, etc.<p>Maybe I'm missing the point, or it's not fair to think that Nortel vs Novell makes a difference. I really have no idea. I'm just wondering aloud. I don't really get how this is all perceived in a legal sense or in terms of how this affects Google's statement today. I get it's relevancy, but does it make Google's position less tenable? Maybe I'm just naive because they support the position I was already in favor of.<p>edit: I guess my other post which is more speculative would be the response to "they also mentioned Novell in the post".
Again, re-reading, it seems like Google's major complaint was in relation to the Nortel patents because of the ridiculous price that they sold for (multiples of what their expected worth was). Even if Google missed out on joining an effective patent troll consortium, is that really the way innovation and industry should be encouraged?<p>It seems imminent that Apple will benefit from Android via Samsung, and Microsoft is already from Android via HTC, Motorola. Is it possible that Google did try to buy them to secure Android. If they had such a large set of patents, wouldn't that have given them and their hardware partners significant leverage against Apple and/or Microsoft? It seems like a defensive pattern.<p>Is it possible that Android's success will feed Google's competitors who've joined together to ensure their ability to leach off of Android via patents? Doesn't that make Google's interests fundamentally juxtaposed from Apple/Microsoft's who will profit simply from patent imbalances?
By the end of this decade Microsoft is going to become the next Yahoo.<p>Their biggest asset all these years was being the default OS on the majority of PCs sold in the USA and around most of the world.<p>As other free options catchup and become much, much more robust this decade (and already most portable non-x86 devices ship without the need for ANYTHING from Microsoft) they become irrelevant. Lawsuits and patent royalties will be all they have left by 2020.
Googles make a large hue and cry whenever its free enterprise are in danger. Same happened with bing story. All bogus claims.<p>People who spend large amount of money in creating new technology want to have something in return. Every product can't go by freemium model.