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

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by *LTD*, Jul 8, 2011.

  1. *LTD*, Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011

    *LTD* macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #1
    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 . . .
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    Was this gem before or after Morgan Stanley downgraded their stock?


    In before RP. :D
     
  3. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #3
    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:
     
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    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.
     
  5. rhett7660 macrumors G4

    rhett7660

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Sunny, Southern California
    #5
    Exactly. God forbid the other players outbid you and they win!

    Where did you read this?
     
  6. TheSideshow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
  7. Big D 51 macrumors 6502a

    Big D 51

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2011
    Location:
    Mobile, AL
  8. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #8
    Boohoo. Wonder if Schmidt wants a little cheese with that whine.
     
  9. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #9
    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:
     
  10. *LTD*, Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011

    *LTD* thread starter macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #10
    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.
     
  11. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    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.
     
  12. kdarling macrumors demi-god

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 46 years ago
    #12
    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.
     
  13. Bonch, Jul 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2011

    Bonch macrumors 6502

    Bonch

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Lithuania
    #13
    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.
     
  14. *LTD* thread starter macrumors G4

    *LTD*

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    Fair point. It's now that we're seeing who's playing with what cards, though. Is this not a correct assessment?
     
  15. ehoui macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    #15
    why do you even try...?
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16
    I might agree if he made it before the auction.
     
  17. Melrose Suspended

    Melrose

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    #17
    You edited your post to remove the offensive remark? :p :D
     
  18. vvswarup macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    #18
    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.
     
  19. FrozenTomato macrumors regular

    FrozenTomato

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    #19
    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.
     
  20. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #20
    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.
     
  21. stonyc macrumors 65816

    stonyc

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Location:
    Michigan
    #21
    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?
     

Share This Page