Google's Attempt To Bully Microsoft Back With Patents Not Going Too Well
from the live-by-the-sword... dept
Ever since Google decided to stick with Motorola Mobility's existing patent fights with various companies, I've been wondering why they did so. Here was a chance for Google to take the high road and actually live up to what it had been claiming concerning the problems of patents. But, instead, it's basically continued to try to use patents as a weapon. The fight against Microsoft has been particularly silly. While Microsoft did initiate things, Motorola's decision to fight back had seemed dubious from the start. Being a patent bully is no way to run a long-term business, and that's doubly true when you're a company telling people how broken the patent system really is.And yet, Motorola Mobility pushed on against Microsoft... and it's not going well. On Friday, a judge knocked the damages down to next to nothing, basically siding with Microsoft. Microsoft had argued that if there were any infringement, the amount owed should be about $1.2 million. Motorola Mobility had argued for... $4 billion. The judge came down at just $1.8 million.
I recognize, of course, that the whole reason that Google bought Motorola Mobility was to get access to these patents. And, on top of that, Microsoft did strike first here. However, Motorola Mobility had hit back quite strongly, and even once Google was in control, it seemed to have little interest in pulling back. The whole thing makes Google look a bit hypocritical, and it certainly hasn't helped the company win any of these legal battles.
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: frand, licensing, patents
Companies: google, microsoft, motorola mobility
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If I were Google and I started seeing all the patent abusing and it started hurting me I'd go completely nuclear just to prove the point. But then again that's just me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now although i dislike what Microsoft is doing, i have one of their phones, but must say though it is easy to use, i understand why it only has 5% of the phone market. Microsoft has just not bothered improving on what others have done, they have a really basic system and i doubt they have spent much developing it. If anything the 1.6 billion they get from android should at least be putting them in a position where they are throwing a lot of money at window phone 8. But the problem i suspect is that they know eventually some version of windows Phone will stick and people will embrace it in higher numbers.
One thing i am amazed at is that windows phones do not integrate into windows desktops, it is amazing to me that they are not using each other to create an environment that is better than the iPhone or Android devices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So Windows Phone is suddenly a Unix based operating system??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"chance for Google to take the high road" -- AND DIDN'T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "chance for Google to take the high road" -- AND DIDN'T.
Learn to respond to the real Mike Masnick & readership instead of the roadrunner cartoon you drew in your head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "chance for Google to take the high road" -- AND DIDN'T.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm happy to let Google to fight on my behalf
Heck, I'd even be happy if Google wins these ridiculous patent wars: they don't have a history of unprovoked attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is so hard to feel sympathy for any company having difficulty with patents when they, themselves, have exploited the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wouldn't assume anything
It's not even about the patents anymore, as much as a highly questionable judge doing something which there is no precedent for ever having been done in any court in the united states.
To think this is about Google's ownership of patents, I would find that somewhat questionable in this case, which I should point out they were sued by *Microsoft*, and that this case was about RAND/SEP more than anything.
see: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130426080437848
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wouldn't assume anything
Anyway, the Judge decided that instead of forcing MS to negotiate, as per RAND licensing terms, that instead he was going to legislate from the bench and use MPEG LA patent pool licensing rates and literally force Motorola to accept licensing rates that they did not agree to accept when they donated their patent to the standard.
To say this is about Google bullying MS, well, that's just dumb. Wasn't the lawsuit launched by Motorola, not Google? So why attack Google? For that matter, doesn't it make sense that if MS uses Motorola's Standards Essential Patents (SEPs), that it should pay them a fair rate according to RAND negotiations, which is the deal that Motorola made with the standards body when it donated its patents to the standard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wouldn't assume anything
This hardly configures as something promoting the progress of science and arts and anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just as goverment taking a percent of your hard earned money is a necessary evil for a working socity with fire fighters roads and defenses so to is temporary taking your natural right to shape your property into certian forms to promote creativity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Taxation is a transfer of wealth to the government so that the government can carry out things like road building, law enforcement, and other public services. There is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But everyone has equal access to those services. The government builds a library, everyone is free to use it. That you may choose not to is not anyone else's fault.
IP law is theft in that it deprives me of something giving someone else exclusive use of it. Just like if I take your car you are being deprived of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The alleged justification for this theft is that it promotes the progress. But that's no justification. Let me take your car and donate it to Sony so that they can use it to promote the progress and build new products. No, that's not justification. It's theft and it should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP is straight theft whereby the transfer of wealth is straight theft. The alleged justification behind this theft is that it promotes the progress. But that is no justification for theft.
The government doesn't even seem to be doing much to ensure that progress is promoted or to determine whether or not it gets promoted. Metrics like "more patents automatically mean more progress" doesn't really tell you if patents promote the progress because if they don't then more patents do not equal more progress. But either way, IP is theft and should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taxes are theft in that they deprive the tax payer of money giving someone else exclusive use of it. You're just giving that a pass because the use is, ostensibly, for the greater good. Maybe it even is for the greater good, it's still theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP is a transfer of wealth from one entity to another with no oversight or accountability. It goes to a private entity who is then free to use it for his own personal gain. If you steal my car, you are free to use it for your personal gain. Sure, you can use it for the public good but no one elected you to do so and there is no oversight process to ensure that you do. You aren't an elected official taking my property within your power and position of an elected official using it for the public good within that position as elected and with public oversight and so for you to take my property is theft no matter what you do with it.
Likewise, IP is theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Anyone or corporation who enforces and benefits from patents should have all of their financial information made public so that the public can determine what their money is being spent on and to what extent the patent system should be maintained, changed, or reduced, or abolished. I want a record of every receipt. There needs to be public oversight over the money that gets spent with the transfer of wealth so that the public can discuss and ensure that the patents are justified. But there is none. The wealth is simply transferred into the hands of a private entity who is then free to use it as they see fit for their own private gain. That's the very definition of theft as distinguished from taxation. There is no democratic oversight over the transfer of wealth, there is no democratic process governing how that wealth transfer gets spent, there is no requirement of transparency over how it gets spent to ensure that progress is promoted and that the money is being well spent to promote the progress, it just gets transferred. That's theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The transfer of wealth due IP laws goes into the hands of non-elected private entities that are then free to use it for their own private purposes". The alleged justification is that it promotes the progress. But that's no justification for theft. IP should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: saulgoode on Apr 29th, 2013 @ 9:38am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Synopsis of article:
1) Google is stupid.
2) Microsoft started it, which makes Google stupid and hypocritical for defending itself against a lawsuit it was already a party to once it bought Motorola.
3) Defending oneself in a patent lawsuit makes one a patent bully.
4) Google is stupid and hypocritical.
Actual timeline of events:
1) Motorola extends a starting offer to license its SEP under high (exorbitant)terms.
2) Microsoft files a lawsuit alleging breach of contract of RAND obligation without attempting a negotiation.
3) Google buys Motorola.
4) Judge Robart places a RAND value on Motorola's SEP that is low enough as to essentially make it worthless. World rejoices, forgets where Seattle is.
Betcha Florian puts a link to this column in one of his blog posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I was Google and I purchased a large patent portfolio that was already in litigation, I'd probably continue with the litigation. Why? So I can win and ride the easy gravy train for a while? No personally it'd be with the hopes that a defeat will allow some very nice precedents to be set that I can use later with equally silly litigation (since clearly nobody wants to fix the system the right way).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]