I'm getting tired of lazy reporting gushing about <i>how many</i> patents are involved in this or that deal, but with little or no discussion of which patents these actually are and what they cover.<p>A few good patents trumps a big pile of trash any day. (e.g. the current Apple/Samsung spat is about just 7 patents.)<p>Also...<p><i>Google is clearly willing to pay to acquire patents, but they’ve reiterated time and time again that they won’t overpay for them. “This anti-competitive strategy is also escalating the cost of patents way beyond what they’re really worth. Microsoft and Apple’s winning $4.5 billion for Nortel’s patent portfolio was nearly five times larger than the pre-auction estimate of $1 billion,” [SVP and Chief Legal Officer] Dummond wrote today.</i><p>How do you get to be SVP at a $200bn company without apparently understanding that things are worth what other people are prepared to pay for them?