Are Any Of The Patents Google Got With Motorola Mobility Any Good?
from the does-it-even-matter? dept
With all of the attention Google bought for buying Motorola Mobility for its patents, one question that not too many people asked was whether or not those patents were any good. Of course, when you're dealing with 17,000 patents and the fact that Google has shown no signs of planning to go on the offensive with patent fights, it seems clear that the point of getting this patent portfolio was very much about quantity over quality -- mainly to ward off lawsuits from other big companies, with the recognition that somewhere in those 17,000 patents was probably something that the other company infringed upon.Still, the folks at M-CAM decided to put the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio to the test by using a variety of scoring techniques, and believes that the portfolio isn't all that valuable, both in the aggregate and at the specific level. It basically found that about 48% of the patents are probably worthless. At the specific level, the company looked at the 18 patents that Motorola Mobility had asserted against Apple, suggesting that these particular patents may be the "stars" of the bunch -- but, again, found that nine of those patents were "impaired," and were unlikely to be very strong or valuable.
The report notes that buying and maintaining dubious patents probably isn't a particularly good value by itself:
Google is paying $12.5 billion for alleged assets that include a 17,000 patent portfolio, of which close to half appear to serve as deterrent value alone. The cost of maintaining patents of dubious quality will be an ongoing and potentially unnecessary liability to Google and its shareholders. Regrettably, close to half of the portfolio deemed "best" based on previous assertions have substantial weaknesses. Google’s patent stockpiling initiative appears to be focused entirely on deterrent value rather than on acquiring quality assets. Google shareholders may take some small solace in the adoption of a multi pronged defensive strategy, but may want to demand higher quality standards for the assets and liabilities acquired in future transactions.Of course, if Google's goal is longer term, it's possible that this isn't such a crazy deal. Already, we've seen that this acquisition alone has been a key driving force in getting lots of people (and especially the press) to admit that the patent system is clearly broken. Spending that much to get that kind of widespread awareness may be worth it... if it leads to real reform (which is still a big question mark). On top of that, if the quantity of patents has a deterrent value, no matter the quality of the overall bunch, it's likely that Google will still find it "worth it." However, the fact that it now needs to maintain these 17,000 patents, where approximately half may have no direct commercial value, really demonstrates (yet again) the massive "tax" of bad patents on companies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bad patents, patents
Companies: google, motorola mobility
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Raised Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raised Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raised Hand...
17 thousands patents can cost up to hundreds of millions of dollar a year to maintain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raised Hand...
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/maintain.jsp
Expired Patents for Failure to Pay Maintenance Fees
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/expform.jsp
http://www.the-business-of-patents.com/pat ent-maintenance-fees.html
Only the big boys can afford huge patent portfolios maybe that is why almost all garbage patents only have a life span of 12 years because nobody wants to pay the 5 thousand dollar fee that comes with it.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/06/patent-maintenance-fee-data.html
Now why copyright doesn't work like that every 3 years you should have to renew your copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raised Hand...
"One mans garbage is another mans gold"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raised Hand...
For that I would have to look at each and every patent to see what they are about.
Only after that, hopefully one would have a picture of what is or not worth it or could be worth it in the future.
Also without understanding for what is good or having no way to know what could be in the future it may trigger the hoarding mentality, just keep hoping it could be useful in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Raised Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raised Hand...
In the 1980's someone happened to notice that in Europe patentees were periodically required to pay what are known as "maintenance fees". Every few years a patentee had to pony up money to keep his/her patent in force. Failure to do so meant that the patent would lapse.
Not to be outdone in its quest for tax dollars, Congress took note and decided "Hey, let's get on that gravy train as well". The motivation? For decades Congress has been taking away from the USPTO money collected by the USPTO, thus having more money to play with. In fact, this has been a sore point given that the USPTO is supposed to be self-supporting, and it is a bit difficult to keep up with an increasing workload when Congress dips into the money pot and takes away the USPTO's ability to hire needed staff, resources to better research and discover relevant prior art, etc.
Thus, in the 1980's the "maintenance fee" concept was added to US law, the law requiring three payments (on an escalating fee basis, of course) over the life of a patent if a patentee wanted to enjoy the full term of the patent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Raised Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Raised Hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Measure
Most of Microsoft’s patents are probably equally worthless. Most of Apple’s patents are almost certainly equally worthless. Doesn’t matter if the gun can only fire blanks; the fact that it looks like a big gun is threat enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Measure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Measure
This means that volume matters, if an x% of patents can stick in court, regardless of their real quality, then the more you have the better. And the party with the larger stack wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Measure
I don’t think it’s curious at all why Google didn’t simply license Motorola’s patents. Motorola held out for a full acquisition at a premium far above the company’s actual value, and threatened to go after its sibling Android partners if Google didn’t acquiesce. Thus the public threats from Jha and Icahn. Thus the high price. Thus the lack of a simpler, cheaper licensing agreement. Thus the unusual $2.5 billion reverse breakup fee.
In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that Google had no intention of doing any kind of deal with Motorola at all, until they forced Google's hand with their threats. Others see the deal as Google wanting to exert stronger control over Android, and wanting to prevent Motorola Mobility from settling with Microsoft or Apple on terms unfavorable to Android's long-term future. Though it still may not prevent Google from embarrassment if those cases don't go in their favor:
If regulatory scrutiny delays the closing of the acquisition, Google could end up buying a company that is formally enjoined from importing Android-based devices into the United States. That would be a really awkward situation. In that kind of scenario, Google might come under pressure from its own shareholders to consider paying the huge $2.5 billion break-up fee. Such an outcome could also raise serious questions about the strength of MMI's portfolio.
...which fits with the overall lack of patent strength noted by M-CAM, further reinforcing my conviction that it's a mistake to focus on the patent angle of the Google-Motorola Mobility deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Measure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong Measure
- Build your own custom phones:
Nope, Google can already do this. Remember the 3 Nexus models?Also, a pretty telling example is Apple, that does not make the iPhone. It is outsourced to Foxconn. That Apple doesn't build the iPhone makes it pretty hard to argue that Google needs to buy an OEM to make a special, customized phone.
- Channel conflict:
The one thing that Google certainly gets with MMI is actually a negative. They scare off their OEM partners who don't like the fact that Motorola is likely to get preferred status.
So, go ahead and argue that it was a BAD patent purchase if you want, but there is no other reason for the MMI acquisition that holds up to even light scrutiny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong Measure
As I said, it doesn’t matter how much “protection” the patents really offer, the point is what you do with them. If Google were to use them more aggressively than Motorola, that would make all the difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just more money to waste...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just more money to waste...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just more money to waste...
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/supercharging-android-google-to-acquire.html
Google didn't buy the patents to only protect themselves. They are protecting the entire Android ecosystem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just more money to waste...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The terms patent & good are mutually exclusive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does it matter?
This reminds me of the guy who always says "you should have told me, I could have got you one for half that."
After being told that, people ask me if I think it is true and did they waste their money? To which I reply, "were you happy with the agreement when it was made? Then (you got a good deal!)(why did you agree?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The crux of a strong market system is that it enables transactions where all parties are happy with the results, and all parties feel they came out better off."
If I had read newest to oldest, I could have saved myself some pecking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, better than average for patents overall, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MAD and Inflatable Fake Tanks
Thus, we have military 'game theory' strategies like inflatable tanks, which look like real tanks from satellite or airborne surveillance. The message, don't attack us on this flank, because we've got tanks up the wazoo.
For nukes, you don't actually need all the nukes. You just need a few highly visible nuclear tests, then you build missile compounds with visible terrestrial surface features. You don't really even need to dig the subterranean components. The 'bad guys' will think you've got ICBMs with nuke warheads down there, and will not launch their fake missiles because if they did, you would fake bomb the shit outta them.
In some 17,000 patents, nobody is expected to take the time to find out if there is a "real bomb". All it takes is one, and everyone just assumes that among 17k, there probably is one that is ticking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thanks a million. Or should I say, "Thanks 12.5 Billion"
Regards,
Sergey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pure Gold
Has it not been proven over and over that Google's s--- don't stink?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's a smokescreen
Patents are nice, but lovely tax losses are worth more"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/01/google_buys_tax_breaks_along_with_mobility/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's a smokescreen
So now Google's got a whole package set: a dedicated manufacturing and marketing channel, a decent sized if not decent quality patent portfolio, and the tax breaks of a company operating at a loss to balance out their huge profits. I think Google knows what their doing and they're going to come out way ahead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's a smokescreen
You're right. All in all, the parts of the deal add up to more than $12.5B. It was a good deal.
But, the STRATEGIC value is the patents. That's the motivator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schmidt in debt
@Peter Cao: Peter. It's me, Eric. I thought we already talked about this. I am going to squash you like a bug if you keep posting on this comment board. What you don't know (but surely suspected) is that the video cameras I installed in your house are allowing me to track everything you do. In fact, I am live streaming your pathetic life, including all the insane searches you do about my home address and love interests, to all my friends on the Stanford faculty. Next I will bring in my mafia-like dark killing power to bear.
===========================================================
Eric, be you real or not Schmidt, so finally, your psychological defense was broken, now that your mind became insane.
Didn't I defeat you globally wherever you go? You still don't understand, that's because your deeds, killing the innocent and threatening the victim, would not be tolerated anywhere on this planet. Anyone would be alerted of this case when you assisted a Stanford Computer Science faculty Sebastian Thrun to counter Stanford ruling against him and to threatening me from fighting against your crimes, by threatening me with the real murder case of
Stanford student May Zhou; in fact, police investigation had confirmed it is people on you (Schmidt) and Thrun's side who murdered May Zhou, before I would post the case on the web. Quite a scandal unheard of in history of college education.
I clearly aware your side is closely watching me though I am a powerless victim on the other side of the earth, because you fear me of my speech to the public about your crimes, crimes you dare not deny, but would drive you insane as you are now. I never search your address or personal issues, other than posting your deeds on the web, this time you are really irritated and finally displayed the evil you to the public.
Have some manners please. That's not going to save you of your fate as a loser ... You still have to explain to the public of your crimes behind May Zhou's case and plotted murder on me, which got you removed from your CEO position, and so You still have to face the legal conseqences. [ http://bit.ly/mayzhoucase ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Schmidt lost grounds
@Peter Cao: Peter. It's me, Eric. I thought we already talked about this. I am going to squash you like a bug if you keep posting on this comment board. What you don't know (but surely suspected) is that the video cameras I installed in your house are allowing me to track everything you do. In fact, I am live streaming your pathetic life, including all the insane searches you do about my home address and love interests, to all my friends on the Stanford faculty. Next I will bring in my mafia-like dark killing power to bear.
===========================================================
Eric, be you real or not Schmidt, so finally, your psychological defense was broken, now that your mind became insane.
Didn't I defeat you globally wherever you go? You still don't understand, that's because your deeds, killing the innocent and threatening the victim, would not be tolerated anywhere on this planet. Anyone would be alerted of this case when you assisted a Stanford Computer Science faculty Sebastian Thrun to counter Stanford ruling against him and to threatening me from fighting against your crimes, by threatening me with the real murder case of
Stanford student May Zhou; in fact, police investigation had confirmed it is people on you (Schmidt) and Thrun's side who murdered May Zhou, before I would post the case on the web. Quite a scandal unheard of in history of college education.
I clearly aware your side is closely watching me though I am a powerless victim on the other side of the earth, because you fear me of my speech to the public about your crimes, crimes you dare not deny, but would drive you insane as you are now. I never search your address or personal issues, other than posting your deeds on the web, this time you are really irritated and finally displayed the evil you to the public.
Have some manners please. That's not going to save you of your fate as a loser ... You still have to explain to the public of your crimes behind May Zhou's case and plotted murder on me, which got you removed from your CEO position, and so You still have to face the legal conseqences. [ http://bit.ly/mayzhoucase ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]