I asked about this on Twitter to deaf ears. Isn't Microsoft mixing up Novell and Nortel? Even if Microsoft did offer to partner on the Novell patents, the accusations are being levied more directly at the Nortel buy by Microsoft, Apple, etc.
Maybe I'm missing the point, or it's not fair to think that Nortel vs Novell makes a difference. I really have no idea. I'm just wondering aloud. I don't really get how this is all perceived in a legal sense or in terms of how this affects Google's statement today. I get it's relevancy, but does it make Google's position less tenable? Maybe I'm just naive because they support the position I was already in favor of.
edit: I guess my other post which is more speculative would be the response to "they also mentioned Novell in the post".
Read Google's original blog posting by David Drummond again:
They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them.
We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms
They made it about the Novell AND Nortel patents. In some regards they need both to show a pattern of collusion. Rather they have a situation where THEY turned down Microsoft to go it alone. Makes their case a lot weaker.
> We’re encouraged that the Department of Justice forced the group I mentioned earlier to license the former Novell patents on fair terms
This also reads to me like Google wants the same thing with this new portfolio. "We figured we could get it cheaper if we let you buy it first, then complain to the DOJ afterwards and get cheaper licensing".
Had Google joined the bidding, they would be unable to use the patents to defend against Microsoft. Microsoft would win.
Since Google refused to bid along and the CPTN and Rockstar groups won, Google isn't able to use those patents to defend against Microsoft. Microsoft won.
Had another group won the auctions, the result would be neutral to both Google and Microsoft. Both would, probably, be bullied.
The only scenario where Google would win would be if they offered the winning bid or joined a winning group with no ties to Microsoft. They would then be able to use those patents against Microsoft.
And don't forget Apple's patent portfolio threatens Google and its partners too.
Had Google joined the bidding, they would be unable to use the patents to defend against Microsoft. Microsoft would win.
Google played this tactically horribly. First, their first goal should have been to get these patents off the table. For example, for the Novell patents, MS wanted them so that Apple and Google couldn't sue them with it. But part of the deal was that MS immediately sold those patents to Attachmate. They own none of the Novell patents now (although they have a perpetual license to their use). So clearly MS wasn't planning on being offensive with the patents. It was purely a defensive play.
Second, by not joining in the bidding Google overplayed how much they are worried about these patents and other patents held by the members of the consortium. Things like that are what drives up prices. And it's like blood in water. Companies can smell when they know you have a weakness.
Google should have just taken these patents off the table, and then continue to fight their current battles.
Now they have their current battles to fight. AND they have 882 Novell patents that they can be hit with. Then 6000 Nortel patents. Whoever is running Google's IP planning I think needs to be replaced.
I don't understand how this makes their case weaker. They're saying they're opposed to the collusion apparent in the novell and nortel deals. By turning down microsoft, they're showing how they're not willing to be party to collusion. Sounds pretty consistent to me.
I don't think you understand what collusion means.
Simply going in together on patents isn't collusion. Intel and Google were together on the final run for the Nortel patents. Google bought 1,000 patents from IBM just a week or so later. Google has no problem sharing patents.
The "implied" collusion was that the patents would be used against Google. This clearly isn't the case if they were asked to be part of the fold.
>The "implied" collusion was that the patents would be used against Google.
Everyone arguing against Google is conveniently forgetting that Google has only been sued by Oracle over Android. All the other suits are against individual manufacturers. This is about Apple and Microsoft colluding against HTC, Motorola, etc. to force them to license Microsoft software. This is not just about Apple and Microsoft colluding against Google.
The only way I could see Apple and Microsoft doing a joint bid with Google is if they retained the ability to sue other players using these patents. So until I see a clear offer of terms, it seems pretty obvious Google was not rejecting a good-faith offer from Apple and Microsoft. They were rejecting a situation where Google would help Apple and Microsoft buy up patents to use against manufacturers that ship Android.
The only way I could see Apple and Microsoft doing a joint bid with Google is if they retained the ability to sue other players using these patents.
The way the patent worked w/o Google was that each party got a 100% perpetual license to use the patents. That is Android would be in the clear on the patents. They would also get a set of patents equal to x% of the patents. So you'd have a set of patents you could assert against anyone you wanted, except those in the deal.
So Android manufacturers would have been in the clear for everything Google produced. BUT, for example, skins on top of Android could still be attacked. And of course so could the HW.
Google should have went in on the deal and pushed stock Android to the phone manufacturers. Sure it hurts differentiation, but today the skins suck anyways, and it would reduce their patent surface (although clearly there are patents MS and Apple have that are outside of these deals).
Okay, we're not talking about a patent, we're talking about a patent licensing agreement, which I don't think either of us have read. And I doubt that it would have given Android users/manufacturers bulletproof protection.
I understand perfectly what collusion means. Whether you interpret the situation as collusion or not is irrelevant. If Google interpreted it as collusion at the time, then it would be consistent with their actions.
"They’re doing this by banding together to acquire Novell’s old patents (the “CPTN” group including Microsoft and Apple) and Nortel’s old patents (the “Rockstar” group including Microsoft and Apple), to make sure Google didn’t get them;..."
Maybe I'm missing the point, or it's not fair to think that Nortel vs Novell makes a difference. I really have no idea. I'm just wondering aloud. I don't really get how this is all perceived in a legal sense or in terms of how this affects Google's statement today. I get it's relevancy, but does it make Google's position less tenable? Maybe I'm just naive because they support the position I was already in favor of.
edit: I guess my other post which is more speculative would be the response to "they also mentioned Novell in the post".