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.

Filed Under: bad patents, patents
Companies: google, motorola mobility

Surprise: Justice Department Says AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Would Be Anticompetitive

from the did-not-see-that-coming dept

Wow! Well, this is a bit of a surprise. The US government, who had been rubber stamping various mergers for a while now, especially in the telco/broadband space, may finally have had enough. The Justice Department has officially moved to block the merger, technically filing a lawsuit against it on antitrust grounds. From the beginning, most people had assumed that no one would block the merger, though in the last few weeks there were definite rumblings suggesting that the tides were shifting. Even so, having the DOJ jump in with a lawsuit is a surprise. AT&T insists that the move was a surprise to it as well, which is also a bit odd. Typically, the DOJ tends to telegraph this kind of move, in order to either pre-emptively end the merger attempt or to get much greater concessions. It's not entirely clear what pushed the DOJ off the fence on this one, but AT&T accidentally revealing that it had lied about the key reasons for the merger couldn't have helped...

Filed Under: anticompetitive, antitrust, merger
Companies: at&t, t-mobile

FCC Asked For Declaratory Ruling That BART Shutting Off Mobile Phone Service Was Illegal

from the but-will-they? dept

We'd already noted that the FCC was investigating whether or not BART broke the law when it decided to turn off mobile phone service in an effort to stop some protests (a direct attack on a specific form of speech). Now, some public interest groups, including Public Knowledge, the EFF and the Center for Democracy & Technology, have specifically asked the FCC to state that BART broke the law and that local government agencies cannot choose to turn off mobile phone networks:

Current events around the country and the world highlight the urgency and importance of this issue. Growing concern over “flash mob” crimes has led some policymakers to attempt to target communications network for increased scrutiny. In the wake of riots in London, politicians in the United Kingdom have proposed increased governmental surveillance of, access to, and control over social media platforms and other communications media. Such interference with communications has a long history of being used to suppress civil rights protests over a wide variety of traditional and new media, from distributing flyers to television broadcasting.

This tendency, multiplied by the number of state and local agencies willing to exercise control over CMRS, could wreak complete havoc on the reliability of CMRS service by rendering it dependent on the discretion of the most-restrictive authority in any given region. Moreover, inconsistency and unreliability of service would be only two of the many resulting problems. If local government agencies claimed the authority to impede or restrict communications at their own discretion, users’ rights to free speech, just and reasonable access, and emergency services would all be imperiled, subject to local determinations of the relative values of these rights as balanced against the peculiar interests of the restricting authority.

As made plain by the negative ramifications of BART’s alternative proposal, statutes exist – and have been upheld by the courts – to prevent actions like BART’s for good reason. When local and state agencies determine a need to restrict communications, they must work with local public utilities or communications agencies and the Commission pursuant to recognized processes. It is untenable legally and practically to allow the whim of any person or agency that has access to network hardware to dictate who is entitled to access communications services and when.

BART’s past shutdown of CMRS, and its apparent plans for similar shutdowns in the future, raise grave concerns. More troubling, other local agencies may use similar shutdowns of CMRS networks in the future--potentially disrupitng access to communications relating to public safety and protected speech. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Commission should issue a declaratory ruling clarifying that such shutdowns by local governments violate the Act.

Filed Under: bart, fcc, free speech, mobile phones, protests, wireless