If The DOJ Really Wants To Review Anticompetitive Patenting, Why Doesn't It Look At Intellectual Ventures?
from the seems-like-a-more-reasonable-target dept
We were just noting the oddities of Intellectual Ventures suing Motorola Mobility Inc. as MMI is likely being acquired by Google -- since Google is an IV investor, and supposedly immune from suits over IV's patents. It would seem like once a deal closes, that the lawsuit would be moot. Along those lines, the folks at M*CAM, who spend a lot of time doing detailed analysis of patent quality, have written a compelling open letter to the Justice Department. You see, the Justice Department is investigating the Motorola Mobility buy to see if it would be anti-competitive. Now, pretty much everyone (including Google) has admitted that the Motorola Mobility buy is mostly about the patents, and patents are technically a monopoly, but they're a legal monopoly. However, the pooling of patents can be anti-competitive. Either way, M*CAM can't quite figure out the reasons here, noting that vertical integration isn't seen as a problem by the Justice Department (see, Oracle, Sun). But if it's the patents that are the issue, M*CAM suggests the DOJ is "looking into the wrong thing:"There�s a shakedown going on, but you�re too concerned with the parking meters across the street to hear the tinkling of coins on the sidewalk.Yes, the letter then shifts into an analysis of how Intellectual Ventures appears to be involved in anti-competitive behavior, that appears to go against the DOJ's own guidelines on what constitutes an anti-competitive patent pool. It's worth reading the whole thing, and wondering which company is likely to do more to hinder innovation over the next five years: Google merged with Motorola Mobility or Intellectual Ventures?
Because speaking of patent pooling... an intellectual venture across that street will lead you to a nice pool to dive into. And lucky for you, we happen to have the insight to light up that pool for a nightly swim, should you decide to take the jump in on behalf of Lady Justice.
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: antitrust, justice department, patents
Companies: google, intellectual ventures, motorola mobility
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and, on a similar subject, why doesn't the DOJ go after the copy'right' cartel, like the MAFFIA (RIAA/MPAA), for their anti-competitive behavior? Or the pharmaceutical cartel or Monsanto and the agricultural cartel? What about government established taxi-cab monopolies or government established cableco monopolies? Instead, they go after those who innovate and leave those responsible for anti-competitive behavior alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"In 2009, the Los Angeles Times reported that Intuit spent nearly $2 million in political contributions to eliminate free online state tax filing for low income residents in California."
Intuit
The list goes on and on and on. Over and over again, the govt does absolutely nothing against those that actually do participate in anti-competitive behavior, yet they continue to go after those who actually innovate for no good reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Monopolies
Isn't it about time the US government started paying attention to economists? The economists have been saying, "Monopolies are bad" for many years now. Do you Americans really want to suffer high unemployment, falling living standards for the 99%, and relentless budget deficits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the flipside...
I can think of at least two other reasons that IV is suing Mobility....
1.) Protect Google from receiving competition on this purchase from anyone who is not invested in IV.
2.) Shock the value of the company in the midst of the sale.
Both anti-competitive in nature...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the flipside...
If option 1 is true, then I would expect the suit to be dropped as soon as the merger is finalized. As for option 2, I believe the offer has already been made, so I don't think Google would throw out a lower one now all of a sudden because of the pending lawsuit.
As has been stated, the connection between Google and IV is well documented, but imagine if this were true and Google was the one that initiated this against Motorola through IV...
/makingnewtinfoilhat :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DOJ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Ventures = Old People's Shitpiss
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting investigations and such rolling against Google to slow them down sure earns them alot of brownie points with those other companies who have had DC lobbying firms longer than Google has. The old guard has paid in much more then Google so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick Enterprises paid by Google
Difficult for anyone to see Google as the weak player in a game in which IV was a participant.
Will MM come clean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
from the US Const...
"To promote the Progress of Science ...by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
I'll say it again, "the exclusive Right". But of course, all you're interested in promoting is the interests of your giant patent infringing buddies.
Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world�s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don�t have any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why doesn't DOJ investigate IV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some facts please, Mike !!!
Care to elaborate Mike ??? or dont you really like the idea of stating you know... actual facts ?
Yes, the letter then shifts into an analysis of how Intellectual Ventures appears to be involved in anti-competitive behavior
Such as ???
that appears to go against the DOJ's own guidelines on what constitutes an anti-competitive patent pool.
Such as ???
It's worth reading the whole thing,
Did you ??
and wondering which company is likely to do more to hinder innovation over the next five years: Google merged with Motorola Mobility or Intellectual Ventures?
Google has neither merged with Motorola or IV..
Mike, "DOING BUSINESS WITH or purchasing an offshoot of another company IS NOT A FREAKING MERGE !!!
Just because a company does business with another company does not constitute a "merge".
since Google is an IV investor, and supposedly immune from suits over IV's patents.
Is that just a guess Mike ?? or do you have any actual FACTS to support that claim.
Do you understand that IV does NOT provide immunity from suits just because you are an 'investor' ?
Do you understand the business model of IV ?
Do you know what "licensing" means ?
I guess not, as if you did have any understanding of IV or anything to do with business you would understand just how wrong you are.. but you being wrong is your SNAFU and is to be expected..
Of course there is little point in trying to explain any of this to you mike, as it appears you are either unable or unwilling to THINK about, well anything !!!!
Mike would you like to show us, (your readers) where it is said that "AN INVESTOR IN IV IS AMMUNE FROM SUITS BY IV".....
Of course you wont say that, because IV has never said that, you only say it because it makes your false and misleading statements seem almost true.
But when you look a little deeper (what YOU are supposed to do), you find that what you say Mike is total bullshit.
Show me a statement where IV say "if you invest with us you are immune from law suits for ALL of IV's patents pool" !!!
this is why you are not actually "DOING" business, you talk about it, but when you talk you show the world what little you understand.
Sure, you can convince a few low IQ kids of your crap, 99.99999 of the population see's you for what you are (or what you think you are)..
AT least you are a source of some amusment..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
playing his cards right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]