Google to acquire Motorola Mobility

[Puzzlegal]

Google has made claims that, in essence, boil down to the argument that the patent system is broken. Some people deep into IP stuff may disagree because they're in the thick of it, but I know a lot of people who look at the issue agree that there are some very serious issues.

The people I know who are most into IP stuff are the ones most convinced that our patent system is broken. It's the free marketeers who seem gung ho on the current patent system. Well, them and patent trolls.

FWIW, IMHO, Patents are necessary and the USPTO does the best they can, although they have problems. The real problem is the U.S. District Court judges who have to rule on patent cases are simply not competent when it comes to technology issues.

It's deeper than that. We have a bunch of bad precedents and the district courts are bound to follow precedent in most situations. The root of the problem is the promiscuous granting of patents, though. The enforcement of ridiculous patents is a secondary problem.

 

[anon(392870)]

The people I know who are most into IP stuff are the ones most convinced that our patent system is broken. It's the free marketeers who seem gung ho on the current patent system. Well, them and patent trolls.

It's deeper than that. We have a bunch of bad precedents and the district courts are bound to follow precedent in most situations. The root of the problem is the promiscuous granting of patents, though. The enforcement of ridiculous patents is a secondary problem.

I don't work in IP, though I enjoy reading/studying it, so its good to hear that maybe my perception on those inside the IP world might be a bit off. Hopefully my friends portray a small segment.

I do agree on the "promiscuous granting of patents" (like that phrase!). That, IMO, is the largest issue as well. I think that's the crux of Google's arugment too (thought I haven't looked into it in much detail).

 

[GBH2]

It's deeper than that. We have a bunch of bad precedents and the district courts are bound to follow precedent in most situations. The root of the problem is the promiscuous granting of patents, though. The enforcement of ridiculous patents is a secondary problem.

How? In the final analysis it is up to the courts to determine what is a novel embodiment, which is mostly question of fact.

 

[DolfanCole]

How? In the final analysis it is up to the courts to determine what is a novel embodiment, which is mostly question of fact.

Really? I admit I know nothing on patent law, but I would suspect that the court merely determines whether a patent infringement has occurred and places little to no judgement on the actual validity of the patent itself. And I think that is what is being alluded to. Patents are given much too "promiscuosly" (to use the previous term). So I think the point is that rather than leave it up to the courts to decide whether patent infringement of "bogus" patents has occurred, overhaul the system such that bogus patents don't get issued in the first place.

 

[Johnly]

So Google questions the patent system while hoarding over 2300 patents? Get real, there IS more to the story....

 

[huskerkate]

So you're saying that Google plans to buy a corporation that has been run into the ground. Why would would they do that? Doesn't seem too smart to me based on your logic. Motorola will be run as a separate business, including Jha at the helm. A CEO is responsible for maximizing shareholder value. How, based upon any objective metric, could you say he has not done that? If your argument is that Google did it just to buy the patents, then who gets credit for keeping those patents in place? Look at Motorola's balance sheet. They have WAY more assets than liabilities. They beat earnings expectations the last few quarters. You use a Droid, right? Come on. They just expanded their products to ATT and Sprint, with more to come. Obviously the Bionic will be awesome, whether you get one or not. Sanjay Jha brought a company that was on the brink, split it up, improved it (sales and EPS) then sold it for a 64% premium. Are you kidding. Your argument is basically that Google bought a POS company. Really? Really???

my argument is that Google sees what many of us see: a company that is undervalued because it is not performing up to it's potential. you are correct that Moto was on the brink of irrelevance, and came storming back with the OG. since then, Moto had the opportunity to put a stranglehold on the smartphone mkt, but hasn't done so. instead, it has limped along, putting out one slightly/incrementally better phone after another. and the Bionic?? sure, it's gonna be a great device. but, if Moto would have had their stuff together 6 months ago, it would have been a phenomenal device, dominating the mkt once again.

i agree that a company like Google, hugely successful and worth 165 billion, wouldn't pay a premium for a crappy company. but, they would pay a premium for a company that isn't being run right, and that could be much more successful with different direction and leadership.

 

[Puzzlegal]

So Google questions the patent system while hoarding over 2300 patents? Get real, there IS more to the story....

There's a difference between hoarding patents and maintaining a defensive patent portfolio. A friend claims that one of the Swiss banks has patented compound interest, not to enforce their patent, but to avoid having to fight a troll who might have patented it first.

We shall see which Google turns out to do.

 

[GBH2]

Really? I admit I know nothing on patent law, but I would suspect that the court merely determines whether a patent infringement has occurred and places little to no judgement on the actual validity of the patent itself. And I think that is what is being alluded to. Patents are given much too "promiscuosly" (to use the previous term). So I think the point is that rather than leave it up to the courts to decide whether patent infringement of "bogus" patents has occurred, overhaul the system such that bogus patents don't get issued in the first place.

The two defenses to a patent infringement lawsuit are: "No we didn't" and "well, if we did, it doesn't matter because the patent is invalid". It is up to the court to decide these two questions. If the courts start to invalidate "bogus"(as you call them) patents then the USPTO will stop issuing them, or there would need to be some statutory changes made by Congress.

 

[Pratt4321]

Down the line, a Motorola and Google merge will be a good thing. While they will remain separate divisions, they can work faster and more effectively and the super giant Google can help push moto in a great direction. All motorola needs is a path laid out. They have the ability just no leadership. One day, google and moto will end all other smartphones. (exaggeration dont eat me alive for it please)

 

[Puzzlegal]

The two defenses to a patent infringement lawsuit are: "No we didn't" and "well, if we did, it doesn't matter because the patent is invalid". It is up to the court to decide these two questions. If the courts start to invalidate "bogus"(as you call them) patents then the USPTO will stop issuing them, or there would need to be some statutory changes made by Congress.

While it's true that the courts have the power to invalidate a patent, that is a power they should use sparingly. It is (or ought to be) up to the patent office to vet a patent and decide if it is reasonable or not.

Even if you successfully defend yourself on the grounds that "the patent was stupid", you have incurred potentially enterprise-killing court costs (at least, for a small enterprise, like a start-up) and endured customer-scaring periods of uncertainty. Invalid patents hurt innovation and they hurt inventors, businesses, and the economy. Yes, even the existence of such patents, even if they can be invalidated by the courts.

 

[GBH2]

While it's true that the courts have the power to invalidate a patent, that is a power they should use sparingly. It is (or ought to be) up to the patent office to vet a patent and decide if it is reasonable or not.

Even if you successfully defend yourself on the grounds that "the patent was stupid", you have incurred potentially enterprise-killing court costs (at least, for a small enterprise, like a start-up) and endured customer-scaring periods of uncertainty. Invalid patents hurt innovation and they hurt inventors, businesses, and the economy. Yes, even the existence of such patents, even if they can be invalidated by the courts.

Yes, SCOTUS has upheld the "clear and convincing" standard to determine whether a patent is valid or not - and I think rightly so.

But - Congress has set forth in 35 USC what is patentable and not patentable. SCOTUS has interpreted these statutes and set forth rules for determining the underlying elements of patent validity and/or infringement such as "obviousness" and "equivalencies". etc.

The USPTO looks to the courts and then promulgates guidelines for patentablity according to those decisions.

So, what has to happen is either SCOTUS has to reverse or "clarify" precedent(unlikely) or Congress has to step in and clarify or rewrite 35USC. (probably won't happen anytime soon). Until then it is still up to the Federal courts to make factual determinations as to whether infringement has occurred or whether or not a patent is valid(albeit by the "clear and convincing" standard)

 

[Johnly]

There's a difference between hoarding patents and maintaining a defensive patent portfolio. A friend claims that one of the Swiss banks has patented compound interest, not to enforce their patent, but to avoid having to fight a troll who might have patented it first.

We shall see which Google turns out to do.

Trust me, I know. Doesn't change the fact that they are under a "system."

 

[anon(392870)]

Man, I come to AC to get away from being a lawyer...

 

[huskerkate]

Man, I come to AC to get away from being a lawyer...

+1M!!

 

[Droid800]

I don't see the hypocrisy - I see the difference between protecting yourself from lawsuits v. using legal challenges to stifle your competitors.

I also don't recall any statements Google made "on the patent system", I may have missed it, I only recall Google making statements about Apple and Microsoft perverting the patent system to thwart competition.

They hypocrisy is plain as day:

Google protests that the patent system is broken and that it needs to be reformed, and turns around and buys a company with the sole purpose of the purchase being the company's patents.

If Google really believed their statement about the state of the patent system, as soon as this sale goes through they will provide free licenses to all of their partners and 'open source' all of them. Somehow, I doubt they'll do that...

 

[Droid800]

I don't see your point. It's like being picked on as a kid... you can get picked on and beat up for as long as you don't have a defense. But, once you start fighting back a few times, people will stop just because they know you will fight back.

Just because Google has 25,000 patents in it's stable now doesn't mean they are going to stoop to Apple and Microsoft's level and file a suit against anyone who tries to compete against them. Also, Apple and Microsoft have said that they would attack those who make handsets for Android so Google needs to be able to protect those manufacturers so they are not persuaded to go to the dark side (WP7). It's just good business to try to deny one of your biggest competitors their primary source of mobile OS income... especially when it's your OS!

As far as apple goes... they make good products, but trying to file suit against anyone who tries to compete is just low... What happened to the days when Patent Trolling was for, well, Patent Trolls. I hope this acquisition by Google can put a stop to this madness.

I'm still waiting for Google to buy RIM to access their enterprise business and the Nortel patent portfolio... that is, if the courts still allow the sale to stand.

Unlike you, I don't believe Google's 'don't be evil' tagline. I have no doubt that Google is planning some major suits against Apple and Microsoft with these new patents.

Also, I do believe some of Apple's suits have some merit. (note: some) Kinetic scrolling and the rubber band effect in scrolling lists is one of them that I think are defensible. Others are not. Some of them do genuinely attempt to get vendors to pay royalties on patented features that were lifted from other's systems. (the scrolling one is one of them, because Android doesn't have it, yet HTC and Samsung do)

Oh, and Google won't be going after RIM. As a matter of fact, I would bet money that Microsoft eats RIM sooner or later for the enterprise knowledge.

 

[tmacfan4321]

They hypocrisy is plain as day:

Google protests that the patent system is broken and that it needs to be reformed, and turns around and buys a company with the sole purpose of the purchase being the company's patents.

If Google really believed their statement about the state of the patent system, as soon as this sale goes through they will provide free licenses to all of their partners and 'open source' all of them. Somehow, I doubt they'll do that...

That's still not hypocrisy. Google specifically called out Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple a few weeks ago for filing patent lawsuits against anything remotely Android related. They did not claim that the patent system was broken, unless you are speaking of some other statement that I failed to find.

Google slams Apple and Microsoft, claims 'hostile, organized campaign' against Android waged through 'bogus patents' (update: Microsoft responds!) -- Engadget

This buyout is a defensive move on Google's part. They're trying to stop the growing trend of Android-related lawsuits by adding more patents to their own library. It's an attempt to scare off MS and Apple, pretty much. I don't see why they would need to provide free licenses to their new patents to all of their Android partners in order to stay ideologically consistent.

 

[Asterdroid]

They hypocrisy is plain as day:

Google protests that the patent system is broken and that it needs to be reformed, and turns around and buys a company with the sole purpose of the purchase being the company's patents.

If Google really believed their statement about the state of the patent system, as soon as this sale goes through they will provide free licenses to all of their partners and 'open source' all of them. Somehow, I doubt they'll do that...

That's not hypocrisy. They don't have a choice in the matter if they want Android to continue to be successful. The patent system isn't going to change any time soon not matter how broken they think it is.

I think the current Social Security system is broken and needs to be reformed, but that doesn't mean I can stop paying into it.

 

[jroc]

To me....actively filing patent lawsuits vs. counter filing in defense is 2 different things.

There is no hypocrisy until Google starts doing like everyone else. Or doing it to the extreme Apple does.

 

[DF400ex]

They hypocrisy is plain as day:

Google protests that the patent system is broken and that it needs to be reformed, and turns around and buys a company with the sole purpose of the purchase being the company's patents.

If Google really believed their statement about the state of the patent system, as soon as this sale goes through they will provide free licenses to all of their partners and 'open source' all of them. Somehow, I doubt they'll do that...

Well I think it would be unwise for Google to 'open source' all their patents because that invalidates their defense. Google has said that they need to defend their manufacturing partners from patent suits.

I hope Google sues the crap out of Apple and Microsoft if for only to stop future suits. Then I could see Google granting their manufacturing partners access their patent portfolio in an attempt to offer protection from Apple and Microsoft's patent trolling.

With manufacturers being forced to pay $5-$15+ to Microsoft per devise they make for using Android, Microsoft is able to pressure their WP7 OS on them in a relatively less expensive bulk agreement. For the sake of Android, Google needs to provide their manufacturers the protection to choose what ever mobile OS they want with out pressure.