Google acquires Motorola Mobility

[Dopedangel]

Well this should put a damper on the patent trolls

[Graham]

Well, that'll put the cat among the pigeons...

Here's the story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...15-706430.html

Graham

[=X=]

Might just be lip service but here are the reply's of the pigeons

Quotes from Android partners

“We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.”

– J.K. Shin
President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division

“I welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.”

– Bert Nordberg
President & CEO, Sony Ericsson

“We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.”

– Peter Chou
CEO, HTC Corp.

“We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.”

– Jong-Seok Park, Ph.D
President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company

[kjk]

Originally Posted by =X=

Might just be lip service but here are the reply's of the pigeons

Quotes from Android partners

Interesting-they all focus on the "defending Android" aspects-and ignore the obvious hardware competition aspects...maybe Google assured the other vendors they weren't going to compete in the hardware side, and this was a patent move?

[=X=]

Larry Page (Google CEO) claims it was move to protect Android against anti-competitive attacks on android and it's partners. He also states Moto division will run as it's own business so moto will continue to compete on it's own merit and not as a Google business. This we will have to see.

Google usually partners up with a different HW vendor for their "Google Experience" products. I just don't see them partnering up with anybody else after this. Hopefully they do and continue to maintain an open platform philosophy.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by =X=

Larry Page (Google CEO) claims it was move to protect Android against anti-competitive attacks on android and it's partners.

Just because you and others say it is anti-competitive doesn't make it so. This looks like an anti-competitive move all by itself.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Just because you and others say it is anti-competitive doesn't make it so. This looks like an anti-competitive move all by itself.

Ah how cute your trying to use logic... Unfortunately your logic is circular you'll have to try again.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Just because you and others say it is anti-competitive doesn't make it so. This looks like an anti-competitive move all by itself.

It would be an anti-competitive move if the fruity company now drops its lawsuit and then Google still started going after them. But what are you worried about --- aren't the fruity ones always first at everything? So what can other people's patents matter to them? And weren't you the one who has expressed such confidence in the justice system?

Let's hope the market now gets back to competing on features and not on who has the most lawyers.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Let's hope the market now gets back to competing on features

Features?

No single hardware vendor is selling more than Apple when we measure by that score. You sure that's the measurement you want to use?

[RockdaMan]

If it didn’t scoop up Motorola, rival Microsoft may have done so instead, giving the Windows Phone giant ample patent ammunition from Motorola’s IP treasure trove to wreak more havoc on the Android platform.

The threat of Microsoft scooping up Motorola is apparent with Google willing to pay 60 percent more per share than Motorola’s stock value and its agreement to pay a $2.5 billion breakup fee should the deal fall through.

Smelling like AOL Time Warner. Eric Schmidt might have to come back and be co-CEO to help them manage those 19,000 extra employees.

http://www.slashgear.com/google-forc...soft-15171855/

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

Features?

No single hardware vendor is selling more than Apple when we measure by that score. You sure that's the measurement you want to use?

Samsung smartphones will soon outsell the iphone. 2012 is the year. Besides, what I meant is that we want to get back to selling electronics on the merits of the devices in question --- not by trying to get the courts to stop the competition from selling them.

[Marseille]

It's a shame google didn't snatch up Palm back before HP did (<$2b vs >$12B). Looks like Motorola has a larger portfolio, but size isn't everything. I suspect Palm's portfolio might have even been a better defense for dramatically less money.

Originally Posted by IBD

“Based on our metrics, the value of Palm’s intellectual property is along the same order of magnitude as Apple,” he said. “The market is overlooking the IP value in Palm, which has great value.”

PatentVest, based in Santa Monica, Calif., scores the value of a company’s IP portfolio in many ways. These include looking at how often a company’s patents are cited by other companies.

Companies must cite pre-existing patents similar to their own in the pre-approval process for patent acceptance. The more times a company’s patents are cited, the more likely it is that those patents are of high value, Mazzarella says. Such patent echoes are also an indication that the companies share similar interests.

On a non-IP note, I wonder if this move will result in more vanilla android and better OS upgrade turnaround. Even if Google keeps their word to not give Motorola preferential treatment, that doesn't mean Motorola can't be ordered to give consumers better guarantees on upgrades. Which might lead non-goog manufacturers to do the same to compete.

[RockdaMan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Samsung smartphones will soon outsell the iphone. 2012 is the year.

I guess that would be a start, if it happens. Still, will it turn back Apple sales so that they stop growing? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Besides, what I meant is that we want to get back to selling electronics on the merits of the devices in question --- not by trying to get the courts to stop the competition from selling them.

Again, if a company feels that its IP and designs are being given away without any recompense to itself, it has a right to seek redress. And then the judge decides...I don't understand the complaints about going to a neutral third party to settle grievances.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by RockdaMan

I guess that would be a start, if it happens. Still, will it turn back Apple sales so that they stop growing? I doubt it.



Again, if a company feels that its IP and designs are being given away without any recompense to itself, it has a right to seek redress. And then the judge decides...I don't understand the complaints about going to a neutral third party to settle grievances.

Point 1: I knew you would come up with another excuse for Apple when they inevitably will lose one "market leader status" after another.

Point 2: We object because it is a frivolous lawsuit based on industry-wide generic attributes. Designed only to temporarily halt the competition's sales and thus causing monetary damages and restricting competition. The Australian judges have already thrown out this nonsense. The problem is that once this gets thrown out of court then Apple still has inflicted a lot of damages on consumers and Samsung, and also has halted sales for a few months. It is an abuse of the legal system to inflict damage on the competition, to fool the public into thinking that everybody is just copying Apple.

This is worse than if somebody had sued Apple for adding 'cut&paste' to IOS. And since the next iphone will have a bigger screen, shouldn't others (HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc) be waiting in the wings to sue Apple for copying that design?

Apple is playing the old "my legal department is bigger than yours" game. And it is hurting everybody. Except Motorola stock holders and all the lawyers involved in this.

[Dopedangel]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Point 1: I knew you would come up with another excuse for Apple when they inevitably will lose one "market leader status" after another.

Point 2: We object because it is a frivolous lawsuit based on industry-wide generic attributes. Designed only to temporarily halt the competition's sales and thus causing monetary damages and restricting competition. The Australian judges have already thrown out this nonsense. The problem is that once this gets thrown out of court then Apple still has inflicted a lot of damages on consumers and Samsung, and also has halted sales for a few months. It is an abuse of the legal system to inflict damage on the competition, to fool the public into thinking that everybody is just copying Apple.

This is worse than if somebody had sued Apple for adding 'cut&paste' to IOS. And since the next iphone will have a bigger screen, shouldn't others (HTC, Samsung, Motorola, etc) be waiting in the wings to sue Apple for copying that design?

Apple is playing the old "my legal department is bigger than yours" game. And it is hurting everybody. Except Motorola stock holders and all the lawyers involved in this.

Apple even used doctored pics in court to show Samsung tablet looks like the Ipad. That means even Apple know the tablets are not similar so the need for underhandedness
I