Microsoft Responds To Google’s Response To Microsoft’s Response(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Microsoft Responds To Google’s Response To Microsoft’s Response
http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/04/gentlemen-take-this-outside/
7 comments
Right, a joint purchase doesn't protect you from your bidding partner's existing patents.
Still doesn't make sense to me. Aren't they still better off with one less set of Patents they can get sued for? It's as if they picked the worst of two bad options.
Perhaps at the time they declined, they thought they still had a chance of winning the patents without giving them to Microsoft and Apple too. Or perhaps they thought that it wouldn't be worth the money they would have to chip in to the group to share them. Both are plausible reasons.
I agree, that is pretty reasonable. It is pretty straight forward too so I really should have thought of that myself.
not at their scale, look at it this way if they each have a ton of patents that can be used against the other than neither has incentive to sue over any patents. It doesn't matter that you build a device that infringes x patent because if the other corp sues you for X you sue them back for Y.
The goal of these companies to create a large pool of patents that they can use against anyone who attacks them. It has to be broad to cover all types of companies that might dare suing.
Microsoft has a huge head start here, they probably have patents in just about any market and I bet they could get more from Intellectual Ventures (run by ex employee of Microsoft) in just about anything else.
Google on the other hand is young and is just starting to amass it's arsenal. They need good patents right now.
If only they had not been stupid and had bought Sun for 8 billion (or even a little more, it was worth it) they could be avoiding a lot of this crap. Sun had a wide range of patents. That was a really dumb move not even bidding for the company.
Anyway this little spat right now makes it even more obvious that patents are being used as barrier to entry for the smaller guys. Google even as big as it is has a hard time entering the cell phone OS market and is being attacked. This should be the definition of Anti-competitive behavior.
The goal of these companies to create a large pool of patents that they can use against anyone who attacks them. It has to be broad to cover all types of companies that might dare suing.
Microsoft has a huge head start here, they probably have patents in just about any market and I bet they could get more from Intellectual Ventures (run by ex employee of Microsoft) in just about anything else.
Google on the other hand is young and is just starting to amass it's arsenal. They need good patents right now.
If only they had not been stupid and had bought Sun for 8 billion (or even a little more, it was worth it) they could be avoiding a lot of this crap. Sun had a wide range of patents. That was a really dumb move not even bidding for the company.
Anyway this little spat right now makes it even more obvious that patents are being used as barrier to entry for the smaller guys. Google even as big as it is has a hard time entering the cell phone OS market and is being attacked. This should be the definition of Anti-competitive behavior.
>Google claims that such suits would only be to defend itself when sued ("no first strike", just mutually assured destruction via countersuits), but Microsoft hasn't replied to that claim.
I don't think MS has to. They're currently licensing a lot of Novell's patents, which means that they're protected against any infringement claims. I don't believe that situation would have changed even if Google won the entire bid-MS would have just given money to Google instead of Novell.
I don't think MS has to. They're currently licensing a lot of Novell's patents, which means that they're protected against any infringement claims. I don't believe that situation would have changed even if Google won the entire bid-MS would have just given money to Google instead of Novell.
[deleted]
I'm hoping this eventually ends up in something amusing like the press release exchange Amazon and Barnes & Nobel had a few years ago. Barnes & Noble was purchasing a book distributor, and Amazon released a press release commenting on that, where they compared themselves to David fighting the B&N Goliath: http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&S...
Barnes & Noble wasted no time in responding, and pretty much thoroughly pwned Amazon. I can't find B&N's release online anymore to cite, though.
Amazon's response? I shall quote it in its entirety:
Barnes & Noble wasted no time in responding, and pretty much thoroughly pwned Amazon. I can't find B&N's release online anymore to cite, though.
Amazon's response? I shall quote it in its entirety:
SEATTLE, Nov. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- "Oh."
From http://puck.nether.net/~rtucker/faq/funny/amazonbn.html the B&N press release which elicited the succinct reply:
NEW YORK, NY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--November 6, 1998--The following is a statement by barnesandnoble.com
With regard to the acquisition of the Ingram Book Group, Barnes & Noble, Inc. is amused to read Jeff Bezos' quote, where he describes himself as an independent bookseller: "Goliath is always in range of a good slingshot."
Well, Mr. Bezos, what with a market capitalization of some $6 billion and more than four million customers, we suppose you know a Goliath when you see one. Your company is now worth more than Barnes & Noble, Borders, and all of the independent booksellers combined. Might we suggest that slingshots and pot shots should not be part of your arsenal.
NEW YORK, NY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--November 6, 1998--The following is a statement by barnesandnoble.com
With regard to the acquisition of the Ingram Book Group, Barnes & Noble, Inc. is amused to read Jeff Bezos' quote, where he describes himself as an independent bookseller: "Goliath is always in range of a good slingshot."
Well, Mr. Bezos, what with a market capitalization of some $6 billion and more than four million customers, we suppose you know a Goliath when you see one. Your company is now worth more than Barnes & Noble, Borders, and all of the independent booksellers combined. Might we suggest that slingshots and pot shots should not be part of your arsenal.
That was pretty weak. Microsoft has a history of attacking with patents, so they can't pretend this offends their delicate sensibilities and that they are shocked that some would want to have ways to defend themselves agains them.
Microsoft has a history of doing a lot of things. Both moral and ethically good and bad. Its the nature of being a mega corps and monopolies.
My biggest surprise is people don't seem to think Google ever have ulterior motives, even when proven in court, or when smashing smaller industries to bits.
My biggest surprise is people don't seem to think Google ever have ulterior motives, even when proven in court, or when smashing smaller industries to bits.
Please elaborate on what you mean by this.
In what way? seems like a straight forward response to me. Corporations do what corporations do, I personally can't see any difference in Microsofts behavior to Googles. They are both as benevolent and malicious as each other in my book.
Please give examples of what you mean here:
"My biggest surprise is people don't seem to think Google ever have ulterior motives, even when proven in court, or when smashing smaller industries to bits."
"My biggest surprise is people don't seem to think Google ever have ulterior motives, even when proven in court, or when smashing smaller industries to bits."
Sorry.
Timely enough someone has started this : http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/06/ive-abandoned-my-boy/
and hacker news commentary: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855559
Heres a quick search result: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/a-window-into-go...
I guess I don't have to justify the nature of fan boys. People that have made there opinions up and will never change there minds no matter what.
Anecdotally I've been dealing with the business side of Google for a while now, and in 2007 I decided that they where the most evil corporation on the planet.
Firstly it started with sub-standard industry/customer tainting products. Destroying my friends companies but releasing inferior products for free.
Then some extremely negative things to say from my time dealing with them over the OOXML ISO process, and more recently working in the news media. I lost all respect for open source community after that process (but thats another story).
More recently dealing with a large news organistion I can say they are controlling manipulative, two faced, liars. I guess most people don't do business with them.
My personal opinion is they are devaluing everything, restricting income streams to small and new companies, dictating business models, and most importantly the creation of the attention economy is destroying the arts.
Timely enough someone has started this : http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/06/ive-abandoned-my-boy/
and hacker news commentary: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2855559
Heres a quick search result: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-newman/a-window-into-go...
I guess I don't have to justify the nature of fan boys. People that have made there opinions up and will never change there minds no matter what.
Anecdotally I've been dealing with the business side of Google for a while now, and in 2007 I decided that they where the most evil corporation on the planet.
Firstly it started with sub-standard industry/customer tainting products. Destroying my friends companies but releasing inferior products for free.
Then some extremely negative things to say from my time dealing with them over the OOXML ISO process, and more recently working in the news media. I lost all respect for open source community after that process (but thats another story).
More recently dealing with a large news organistion I can say they are controlling manipulative, two faced, liars. I guess most people don't do business with them.
My personal opinion is they are devaluing everything, restricting income streams to small and new companies, dictating business models, and most importantly the creation of the attention economy is destroying the arts.
Now Microsoft is being disingenuous.
The only 'defense' against patents Microsoft holds, and can prosecute against Google, are patents that Google holds, and can prosecute against Microsoft. Sadly, that's how it works.
Acquiring new patents, held jointly, could only be used against third parties. Of course if Microsoft thinks it has the momentary advantage, it'd like to freeze that advantage forever by making all new patents jointly shared.
Nuclear states are always the biggest fans of non-proliferation!
Unless of course Microsoft wasn't just offering to bid jointly, but license all prior IP mutually in perpetuity at the same time? Such a true non-aggression pact would be interesting, if it did not run afoul of antitrust coordination concerns.
The only 'defense' against patents Microsoft holds, and can prosecute against Google, are patents that Google holds, and can prosecute against Microsoft. Sadly, that's how it works.
Acquiring new patents, held jointly, could only be used against third parties. Of course if Microsoft thinks it has the momentary advantage, it'd like to freeze that advantage forever by making all new patents jointly shared.
Nuclear states are always the biggest fans of non-proliferation!
Unless of course Microsoft wasn't just offering to bid jointly, but license all prior IP mutually in perpetuity at the same time? Such a true non-aggression pact would be interesting, if it did not run afoul of antitrust coordination concerns.
Either you like to use the weapons at your disposal or you don't. The whole defensive / offensive idea is just a smoke screen. It's exactly like non-proliferation!
Believing Google wants patents for 'defensive' purposes is like believing Iran wants to enrich uranium to generate energy. Google has never used patents offensively because it would get destroyed by anyone worth suing. If a serious adsense/search competitor took 50% of Google's revenues and had no patents they'd be sued into oblivion.
Believing Google wants patents for 'defensive' purposes is like believing Iran wants to enrich uranium to generate energy. Google has never used patents offensively because it would get destroyed by anyone worth suing. If a serious adsense/search competitor took 50% of Google's revenues and had no patents they'd be sued into oblivion.
+1 on the title
This is turning into a big pissing match. If Google was really focused on innovating instead of patenting like they said they wanted to do a few days a go they would let this drop and focus on innovating. The real proof is in the execution, not the banter.
The real question is do the lawyers get to charge back to the business for every the tweet? Because if so these guys are racking up some big bucks.
The real question is do the lawyers get to charge back to the business for every the tweet? Because if so these guys are racking up some big bucks.
> If Google was really focused on innovating instead of patenting like they said they wanted to do a few days a go they would let this drop and focus on innovating.
Because clearly everyone at Google is spending all of their time on this argument, leading to all innovation and development in the company grinding to a halt.
Because clearly everyone at Google is spending all of their time on this argument, leading to all innovation and development in the company grinding to a halt.
Google claims that such suits would only be to defend itself when sued ("no first strike", just mutually assured destruction via countersuits), but Microsoft hasn't replied to that claim.
Apparently, without the ability to use these patents to countersue defensively, Google did not consider them worthwhile to pursue.