Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Original poster
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8aac206a-a98a-11e0-a04a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1RY053B3s

Google’s Schmidt worried and disappointed over Apple consortium’s Nortel patent win

“Eric Schmidt, Google executive chairman, has criticised Apple, Microsoft and Research in Motion for spending richly on patents rather than innovating,” David Gelles reports for The Financial Times. “His criticisms come a week after those companies beat Google in the bidding for a collection of strategically vital patents from Nortel that cover wireless, 4G, data networking, internet and semiconductor technologies.”

Gelles reports, “‘I’m worried and or disappointed that we’ve gotten to this point in the industry,’” Mr Schmidt said.”

Gelles reports, “Mr Schmidt signalled that Google would not be shy about acquiring other patent portfolios at reasonable prices, while building out its own holdings. ‘Now that the value of patents appears to have increased a great deal based on these data points, there are lots of people that have patents that are available,’ Mr Schmidt said. ‘We have a lot of patents. If the answer is tonnage, I think we’ll be fine.’”

------------------------------------------------------------

Yet Google had no problem entering the bid, and then bidding the distance to the sun and other nonsense, while others bid sanely and acquired meaningful patents that Google actually needed. Badly. And of course, Google is more than willing to enter in to other patent bids in the future (disclaimer: the kind where they don't f it up.)

Could they not afford it? Maybe it's time to let go of all this "open" nonsense and start charging for the OS. Or perhaps it might not be a good idea to charge for something that isn't entirely yours?

The irony here is just too good to pass up. Was Eric T. Mole using a Nexus S to take notes about the iPhone while he sat around at board meetings? Nope. And we know the rest of the story.

But Schmidt's right to be worried and disappointed. Absolutely. But not because of the boilerplate fluff he mentioned. But because of the tidal wave of patent lawsuits that'll hit his company sooner or later. I wonder how much IP in Android isn't stolen . . .
 
Last edited:

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,397
12,521
Was this gem before or after Morgan Stanley downgraded their stock?


In before RP. :D
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
Sounds more like the post calling the kettle black.

Google was right to go after the patents but apple, RIM and MS are wrong because they won the patents :confused:
 

Rodimus Prime

macrumors G4
Oct 9, 2006
10,136
4
In before RP. :D

It more I had little interested in this story or responding to LTD on this one.
Sounds more like the post calling the kettle black.

Google was right to go after the patents but apple, RIM and MS are wrong because they won the patents :confused:

Yeah that is kind of my take way from it as well. I could guess that Google is worried that the group could use those patents to cripple Android and abuse them that way. My understanding in Google interest in them was more for defensive reasons instead of offensive. I think Google is worried that the group will use them as weapons to hurt Android.
 

rhett7660

macrumors G5
Jan 9, 2008
14,377
4,502
Sunny, Southern California
Sounds more like the post calling the kettle black.

Google was right to go after the patents but apple, RIM and MS are wrong because they won the patents :confused:

Exactly. God forbid the other players outbid you and they win!

It more I had little interested in this story or responding to LTD on this one.


Yeah that is kind of my take way from it as well. I could guess that Google is worried that the group could use those patents to cripple Android and abuse them that way. My understanding in Google interest in them was more for defensive reasons instead of offensive. I think Google is worried that the group will use them as weapons to hurt Android.

Where did you read this?
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,889
921
Location Location Location
Sounds more like the post calling the kettle black.

Google was right to go after the patents but apple, RIM and MS are wrong because they won the patents :confused:

No, he's saying that while he understands the game and is willing to play, he's disappointed that things have gotten this bad with patents, patenting, and hording them until the time is right.

Sounds like a fair comment. :confused:
 

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Original poster
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
No, he's saying that while he understands the game and is willing to play, he's disappointed that things have gotten this bad with patents, patenting, and hording them until the time is right.

Sounds like a fair comment. :confused:

Sounds more like he doesn't have the ones he needs and is pretty pissed that folks representing Google in the bidding decided to be smartasses. Everyone else took it damn seriously but for some reason Google decided to make a joke out of the process (when they could have used really used them.) Why is that? Maybe it's in line with their "free and open" policy or something. That you are philosophically opposed to patents or whatnot and others will see the light, too. Whatever. Why bother entering into bidding with serious contenders like MS and Apple if you're not willing to go the distance and pay top-dollar? These are key patents, which is why everyone made a big deal out of them.

It's *always* better to have patents than not have them, and even more critical to jump on important ones. There's a reason Jobs announced so emphatically in 2007 that Apple patented the living hell out of the iPhone: because successful and informed tech companies know their value. Now that Google didn't get what they wanted there are lingering questions about Android's legal legitimacy and uncertainty about what competitors are planning in light of that. That's really not a good position to be in.

The ones who don't like patents are usually the ones who aint got none.
 
Last edited:

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,682
43,740
No, he's saying that while he understands the game and is willing to play, he's disappointed that things have gotten this bad with patents, patenting, and hording them until the time is right.

Sounds like a fair comment. :confused:

I did not take his comments that way but rather to the point that he's exhibiting sour grapes.

Instead of bemoaning the fact they lost perhaps they should stopped being so cute and not bid us Pi but rather approach it a little more business like because apple, MS and RIM certainly did.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
There's a reason Jobs announced so emphatically in 2007 that Apple patented the living hell out of the iPhone: because successful and informed tech companies know their value.

It's true that Jobs said, "And boy, have we patented it." He even claimed that they had filed over 200 applications.

It's now been four years and no major patent has come out of it so far.

Unfortunately, it can take the PTO over two years just to get around to start reviewing a patent, and another 3-5 years to approve it.

So by the time Apple gets anything worthwhile, the whole industry (including them) could be on totally different soft/hardware models.

This could be one reason why they're now so eager to buy patents that are already approved and proven worthwhile.
 

Bonch

macrumors 6502
May 28, 2005
442
1
Lithuania
What's funny is you guys think he's serious. Schmidt and Jobs are old buddies. This is just a facade they give the pubic to keep the drama up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

*LTD*

macrumors G4
Original poster
Feb 5, 2009
10,703
1
Canada
It's true that Jobs said, "And boy, have we patented it." He even claimed that they had filed over 200 applications.

It's now been four years and no major patent has come out of it so far.

Unfortunately, it can take the PTO over two years just to get around to start reviewing a patent, and another 3-5 years to approve it.

So by the time Apple gets anything worthwhile, the whole industry (including them) could be on totally different soft/hardware models.

This could be one reason why they're now so eager to buy patents that are already approved and proven worthwhile.

Fair point. It's now that we're seeing who's playing with what cards, though. Is this not a correct assessment?
 

ehoui

macrumors regular
Jan 27, 2011
217
0
It's true that Jobs said, "And boy, have we patented it." He even claimed that they had filed over 200 applications.

It's now been four years and no major patent has come out of it so far.

Unfortunately, it can take the PTO over two years just to get around to start reviewing a patent, and another 3-5 years to approve it.

So by the time Apple gets anything worthwhile, the whole industry (including them) could be on totally different soft/hardware models.

This could be one reason why they're now so eager to buy patents that are already approved and proven worthwhile.

why do you even try...?
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,397
12,521
No, he's saying that while he understands the game and is willing to play, he's disappointed that things have gotten this bad with patents, patenting, and hording them until the time is right.

Sounds like a fair comment. :confused:

I might agree if he made it before the auction.
 

Melrose

Suspended
Dec 12, 2007
7,806
399
What's funny is you guys think he's serious. Schmidt and Jobs are old buddies. This is just a facade they give the pubic to keep the drama up.

You edited your post to remove the offensive remark? :p :D
 

vvswarup

macrumors 6502a
Jul 21, 2010
544
225
I had a good laugh over reading the stories about Google's bidding. The titles were even funnier, "Google bid pi and lost" or something to that effect.

I'm still trying to understand what Google was trying to do. Were they trying to throw off their competitors? Google can spin this any way they want to but the bottom line is that if they wanted to get their hands on the patents, they should have bid enough to get them.
 

FrozenTomato

macrumors regular
Jul 22, 2011
156
0
I had a good laugh over reading the stories about Google's bidding. The titles were even funnier, "Google bid pi and lost" or something to that effect.

I'm still trying to understand what Google was trying to do. Were they trying to throw off their competitors? Google can spin this any way they want to but the bottom line is that if they wanted to get their hands on the patents, they should have bid enough to get them.

it showed Google (and Larry Page's) total lack of respect for investors money.

Any major acquisition or corporate expenditure must be supported by extensive due diligence. Every penny must be accounted for, justified and deemed fiscally responsible and must be spent in the interest of investors.

Bidding pi, or whatever shows a reckless attitude towards corporate spending. No wonder their Free cash flow is low compared to Apple and Microsoft

All these side projects (Buzz,Wave,Google+), money losing operation (Youtube, blogger, picasa,etc.) and acquisitions with low or negative ROI is dragging down the company's FCF.
 

neiltc13

macrumors 68040
May 27, 2006
3,128
28
Is no one else completely confused by this whole affair?

It shouldn't be possible for companies to buy patents - that makes no sense. If you file a patent, it's because you want to protect your own innovation. Apple, Microsoft and RIM shouldn't be able to sue others for infringing on these patents because they were not theirs in the first place.

But then the law says differently. Time for a rethink.
 

stonyc

macrumors 65816
Feb 15, 2005
1,259
1
Michigan
Is no one else completely confused by this whole affair?

It shouldn't be possible for companies to buy patents - that makes no sense. If you file a patent, it's because you want to protect your own innovation. Apple, Microsoft and RIM shouldn't be able to sue others for infringing on these patents because they were not theirs in the first place.

But then the law says differently. Time for a rethink.
What is there to be confused about?

Just my opinion... but I think it's perfectly reasonable to buy/sell patents. It's essentially like buying land, but in this case it's intellectual property. If you bought a piece of land, and someone without your permission began to build on that land... shouldn't you have legal recourse to get that person to stop? Using the same real estate analogy, if I buy that piece of land fair and square, shouldn't I be able to sell that land too?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.