Microsoft general counsel notes that
Google was offered to joint bid on the patents.
To which Google
politely declined.
We are not privy to the complete legal terms a joint bid would have been under. Therefore, we have no ability to tell if Microsoft imposed onerous terms on a joint bid that were untenable for Google.
As such, making a conclusion that Google was hypocritical on the fact that Google was offered a joint bid and refused it is based solely on the few facts available and not the multitude of factors that go into a business deal.
Doesn't sound very hostile does it? Sounds more like whining. Speaking of, here is a good post on the hypocrisy of Google.
Apple implements features from products and their T&Cs for the app store prohibit applications that "duplicate functionality". You can make many of the same arguments. Let's break it down, list by list.
Hall said:
Yelp gets popular? Copy their info, shove Yelp to the bottom of the page and put Google Places and reviews at the top.
Google makes changes to their algorithm periodically, and Google Places aggregates reviews. If Yelp provides better reviews, users will go to Yelp instead of Googling it, and Google will lose out on the search traffic/analytics/potential ad clicks related to search terms. Don't see the problem with this.
Hall said:
Groupon won't sell? Spend billions from other businesses to destroy them.
If Groupon won't sell and Google is interested in a sudden booming industry as a potential revenue source...why not create their own version of a deal site? Also, creating a deal site to make money/succeed and creating a deal site to "destroy them" are not necessarily mutual.
Hall said:
Twitter and Facebook innovate on search? Take their content, whine when they try and stop you then spend billions to prevent their growth and hopefully destroy them.
Both Twitter and Facebook made deals with Google to get deeper search integration. Twitter & Facebook appearing as social results in Google is not only beneficial to google; it drives traffic from Google searches to those sites in greater quantities. It improves the user experience as they get relevant social media results from popular sites.
If the sites don't want to renew and Google believes it huts the user experience, they can argue on behalf of their users.
Hall said:
Apple working on a touchscreen smartphone? Spend billions from another business and copy everything you can, down to swipes and apps.
This is pretty generic. By Apps does he mean applications on mobile phones, or specific examples that he does not provide?
As far as swipes go...well, that's an issue for the courts. On a capacitive touchscreen, a swipe strikes me as the natural maneuver for operations. But we'll see. I would argue that this is further based in fact than other claims, but the question of whether that should be criticized (noticing intuitive implementations and improving your user experience) is a multifaceted one.
Hall said:
Need a smartphone operating system with Java. Take Java and use it for your own ends.
I'm not going to try to defend this as it hasn't fully panned out legally. I will acknowledge that the evidence keeps making it look worse and worse for Google over time and that there are some valid criticisms of that statement. The emails released seem to indicate Google knew this in the Oracle case and Google thought they needed a license at some point. I haven't heard anything of Google providing later documentation that would cause a rational reason for them to change that belief.
Hall said:
Need a location mapping technology and Skyhook won't sell? Spend billions from your monopoly profits and strongarm your partners and drive Skyhook out of business.
Debatable. On one hand, Google has considerable influence. On the other, Google doesn't require certification to ship an Android device (just to do so with Google apps), and Skyhook does cut out data that is useful to Google in improving the service and Skyhook could (under the hood, away from the eyes of many consumers) cause major compatibility/accuracy headaches that would reflect poorly on Google's products that use location services, and Google would be powerless to fix them - they'd be at Skyhook's mercy. So this one is somewhat disingenuous.
Hall said:
Buy up the big travel search sites.
Apple didn't buy Lala, Microsoft didn't buy Skype, etc... buyouts are baaaaad and can't be a good way to utilize existing innovation, a first mover's advantage, and a solid codebase to proceed on innovating further rather than reinventing the wheel.
Hall said:
Claim you are open source but share nothing related to what your business claims to be about -- search, and nothing related to how you make your money -- advertising
.
Most companies aren't fully open source. To give away such secrets would destroy Google. This is really a ridiculous argument.
Hall said:
Claim you are open and standards based but control who gets access to your smartphone operating system
If you want to be Google certified, you have to pass their tests for consistency, security, stability, etc...your device reflects on Google if it carries such branding and their apps. You can ship an Android device without said Google apps if you want, no blessing required.
The same people bitch about the fragmentation, consistency issues, etc...
Hall said:
Like all rich monopolists, they spend millions hiring high priced lobbyists and public relations teams inside the Beltway -- for their direct benefit
Any business uses lobbyists. If you don't, you're going to get crushed by the competition. It's just the nature of things, unfortunately.
I am sure Apple has lobbyists too. As do most big corporations.
