Google tried to present its $12.5b acquisition of Motorola as an opportunity to "supercharge the Android ecosystem," but it's clear that the deal was equally prompted out of desire to protect Android from further patent lawsuits using Motorola's strong patent portfolio. From all appearances, it actually seems like Google was first interested in somehow licensing or buying Motorola's patents, and then decided it would be nice to spend a little more and just buy the whole damn company. Of course, that raises the question: what's going to happen now? The smartphone landscape is awash in patent suits, most targeted at Android OEMs, and Google's clearly looking to have an impact. What's the strategy?
- First, as Google general counsel David Drummond noted on the conference call announcing the deal, nothing can really happen until the deal closes. That's going to take some time, since the acquisition needs to be approved by regulators in the US and Europe. Until then, Motorola's on its own, although I'd imagine the lines of communication between the two companies will be wide open.
- Once the deal closes, Motorola will be run as a separate business, but it sounds like Google will take formal possession (called an "assignation") of Motorola's 12.5k issued patents and 7500 patent applications. That'll give the company the right to sue others with them and/or license them out.
- There are three major cases that this acquisition will affect, and Google will have to negotiate each one individually. The end goal for Google in each case will be to acquire a broad patent license that covers the entire Android ecosystem and then indemnify all of its partners against further patent lawsuits, which could be quite challenging -- and potentially quite expensive. Let's look at the outstanding cases.
- Motorola vs. Apple: Motorola actually sued Apple first, asking the court to declare Moto smartphones clear of Apple's patents, and then Apple sued back. The Google acquisition really only changes the balance insofar as Google has plenty of money and patience to keep fighting, while Motorola Mobility was still getting itself steady as an independent company following the spinoff. Whatever threat Motorola's patents posed to Apple doesn’t seem to have prompted Cupertino to enter into substantive negotiations about a settlement and cross-license, and now Google will now have to convince Apple to enter into an agreement that covers the entire Android ecosystem. That doesn't seem easy.
- Microsoft vs. Motorola: Microsoft sued Moto first, and then Moto sued back. What's interesting is that these two are actually former partners, and both seem somewhat willing to enter into patent licensing agreements -- Microsoft is already collecting patent royalties from HTC on Android phones, for example. That might make Google's task easier, but don't underestimate Ballmer's desire to beat out his competitors in Mountain View at all costs -- Google will have to pose a significant threat to Microsoft before the Redmond boys will do anything to make Android more appealing to OEMs than Windows Phone 7.
- Oracle vs. Google: Here's where it gets interesting. The Oracle case is probably the most significant to the Android ecosystem right now, and it's also the one in which Google is doing the most poorly -- internal Google emails showing that the company decided to use Java without a proper license have recently been revealed. That means Google's probably motivated to settle, and Motorola's patents give it a great opportunity: Oracle obviously doesn't make phones or mobile operating systems, but Motorola owns plenty of patents on networking and video encoding as well. That's the sort of easy cross-license that makes sense, but it all depends on whether Oracle decides it stands more to gain from collecting license fees from Android or more to lose from a Motorola patent lawsuit. Look for this one to be affected first -- probably by a Google countersuit as soon as the Motorola acquisition closes.
- Other lawsuits like Apple vs. Samsung, Apple vs. HTC, or the various Lodsys cases won't be affected directly in the short term -- Google's not a named party to any of those, and it'll probably stay mostly on the sidelines unless it can somehow leverage Motorola's patents into ecosystem-wide licenses.
All that said, it's still curious why Google spent the full $12.5b on Motorola, instead of a smaller amount acquiring the rights to Moto's patents -- or the rights to litigate with those patents. (Or even something more like the Microsoft / Nokia deal, which involved patent cross-licensing and joint development by the two companies.) It's easy to see why Google and Motorola joined forces to make the most out of Moto's patents -- but now they've got to explain how they'll make the most out of what actually matters: Motorola's products.

Comments
Nilay, be my lawyer!
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:11 AM EDT reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
all the motorola patents pertain to feature phones. LOL
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 5:12 PM EDT reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I really don’t think it makes a difference if the patent pertaining to a cheap feature phone is infringed on an smartphone or tablet or a pc as long as it is infringed.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 5:33 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
it does make a difference. why do you think, out of motorola’s 17,000 patents, that they only found 5 that MAY be infringed by the iphone?
did you even read the lawsuit claims in apple vs motorola mobility?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 6:05 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
it does make a difference. why do you think, out of motorola’s 17,000 patents, that they only found 5 that MAY be infringed by the iphone?
did you even read the lawsuit claims in apple vs motorola mobility?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 6:05 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
5 is a lot actually, if they’re about core technology. The patents Apple uses against competitors on the other hand are mostly useless.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 7:54 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
@ Psymo – As a user, I care more about how I interact with a touchscreen than whats running underneath. Calling it useless doesn’t make it so.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 1:38 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
The touchscreen is in fact a core part of the user experience, and it has existed (including many of the supposed “Apple innovations”, such as pinch-to-zoom) for years. Just because it is an important part of the user experience, doesn’t mean we should be ok with the patent office granting absurdly vague or obvious patents around it.
Posted on Aug 23, 2011 | 2:43 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Some of the core multi touch patents that Apple asserts now are from its FingerWorks acquisition in 2005. FingerWorks have been doing this from 1999 onwards.
First time I saw zoom levels being changed using two fingers was the famous TED speach by J.Han in 2006. Though there, if I remember correctly, he used two hands when giving a demo of multi touch on a large touch screen – like the MS Surface.
But there are absurd patents, I agree.
Posted on Aug 30, 2011 | 11:48 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually, the real problem is that you don’t understand patent litigation or the strategies that lawyers employ. It would be STUPID for any company to lay all infringing patents out on the table. If this is like thermonuclear war (and it is), do you really want to let your enemy know about where all your strategic nukes lie from the start? Of course not. Apple has done just this in it’s case against HTC. The suit was initially filed with a dozen or so patents, and later (when the stakes became higher) they added more patents to the suit. So, clearly, just because Moto only filed suit with 5 patents, doesn’t mean they are the ONLY patents that the iphone infringes. The fact that I even have to explain patent litigation strategies to anyone is a proof that the system is broken.
Posted on Aug 23, 2011 | 2:38 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
You know that when Motorola made the statement, they were already privy to the knowledge that a buyout was coming right??? I don’t know what the purpose of the statement was, but even at the time of the statement, they knew damn well that Motorola (especially under Google) was not going to be suing any Android OEMs
Posted on Aug 30, 2011 | 5:54 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Can you afford him?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 7:11 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Just call it what it is Nilay: Thermonuclear patent war.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:12 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
The Patent Wars – Mutually Assured Distraction.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:25 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
It would be awesome if they spent all this money and energy making products instead.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:16 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Ummmm…. who else turns out more products than Google? Let’s see this year… Honeycomb, working on Ice Cream Sandwich, Google+, Fusion tables in beta, Google Music, Loads of improvements on Google Maps, Laying fiber in Kansas City, Chrome OS, Chromebooks, Chrome Browser, Chrome Web Store, self driving cars, getting those self driving cars legalized in Nevada, Android@Home, joint initiative with iRobot (makers of the Roomba) to turn out Android based robots, Google+ integration with everything, improving search by culling spam and possibly integrating the +1 button web wide, and on and on…. It would be awesome if their competition would just compete through innovation rather than litigation, then they wouldn’t have to do this sort of thing….
Posted on Aug 30, 2011 | 5:48 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
It would be awesome if they spent all this money and energy making products instead.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:16 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Someone needs to make a graphic of this.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:44 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Is 12.5B worth keeping the patent trolls at bay… or is 12.5B worth becoming a huge patent troll bastard?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:13 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Judging by the man hours spent on Android, the lawsuit with Oracle, the acquisition of Motorola and now taking on Motorola’s current lawsuits, Google is clearly losing a lot of money with Android. If the point of a business is to make money, what is Google actually accomplishing here?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:19 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
google spent a lot on youtube acquisition. they spend a lot on keeping it online today. and it is now profitable and going to remain very profitable in the future. same goes for android. long term investment.
if they do not take risks, they are going to end up being a one (revenue generating) product company which is stupid for any company.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:23 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I’m not saying whether or not they should take the risk but the it will be a very long time before Google is in the black with Android. It was fairly easy to see that YouTube was going to make money on ads. How would Android users react to seeing ads all over Google’s own apps? This is why I don’t think the Android/YouTube comparison really works well.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:30 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Google spent like 200m on yputube. Not quite as much as their Android costs.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:33 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
That would actually be 1.65 billion back in 2006.
http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/google_youtube.html
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:35 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Bzzt. You Tube is not profitable. Googles has blown a heck of a lot of money o acquisitions and products that were discontinued and failed in the marketplace. They were only able to do so because of their ad revenue. By all accounts Android ad revenue has not been nearly what Google wanted.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:36 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
hmm yes clearly they are losing money I can tell by these things and the pixels
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:24 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
The ability to make more money in the future (free of the hassle of lawsuits and injunctions).
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:26 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Since when does Google sue, well anyone?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:40 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
since the motorola acquisition closes
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:58 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I seriously doubt that will happen and if they do then I will admit that I was wrong (which doesn’t happen that often).
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:00 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Google has sued lots of people and companies. Take a few minutes to do some research instead of just posting what you would like to believe. They have and will continue to sue anyone who uses Android without a license.
I cannot imagine the amount of cognitive dissonance it takes to believe Googles friendly open schtick against all evidence and fact to the contrary.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:37 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Links or didn’t happen.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:39 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Thank you for the explanation – all these patents get confusing…
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:14 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Even Google hated MotoBlur so much that they spent $12.5 billion just to get rid of it
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:14 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
what about locked bootloaders? we’ll get to see if google really wants to be "open"—though keeping the bootloader locked would likely be good for mr. rubin’s political aspirations…you know, since empty words and promises are a prerequisite for congress.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:55 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Motorola Mobility will be operated as a separate company, meaning it is still up to the people at Motorola Mobility, not Google, as to whether or not unlock the bootloaders.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 4:56 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Its hilarious that you actually believe that. Nobody who works at Moto does.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:23 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I haven’t seen any article or video that says otherwise. Or, do you work at Moto and/or have the inside knowledge? No? Well then.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:34 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
’What’s the use of buying patents only for $12.5 billion? Let’s buy the whole damn company!’
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:59 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Money well spent.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:43 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
best, explanation, ever
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 5:31 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This!
Posted on Aug 18, 2011 | 3:52 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Epic patent wars coming. Hope we’ll hear some epic fights between Nilay and Joshua in the upcoming podcast
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:16 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Hopefully this keeps everyone at bay, like the cold war situation
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:41 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
They should just make a entirely new podcast out of them arguing, maybe a video podcast that ends in a fistfight :P
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:04 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, hopefully, by virtue of the acquisition, we may NOT see patent wars, but companies quickly resolving to cross-licensing or dropping suits all together. It depends on how Google intends on wielding these patents. If they stick to their word and uses them as protection, we may not see an all-out war. Use them as a weapon and we might see years of litigation.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:32 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Nice post
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:17 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder if this will strain Google’s relationships with the other handset makers. Will they see this as a treat to there own businesses.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:19 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
officially. they are happy that google now has more patents to take on the lawsuits.
http://www.google.com/press/motorola/quotes/
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:22 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
officilally.. good you put it that way.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:32 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
They will be happy up until those lawsuits are resolved. Once that happens I’d bet Google will go off with their Moto division and start making HTC/Sammy worried.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:40 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Their partners are not happy about this at all. Not. at. all
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:46 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Nilay, as soon as you think you’re done with patents for bit, they suck you back in, good job on the wrap up.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:20 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
MS partners with Nokia and all you hear about is how the other partners will be affected negatively. Google BUYS Motorola and no mention of how this could possibly cause a rift with HTC, Samsung, and LG because they are now in direct competition.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:20 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
don’t worry. a microsoft-nokia acquisition deal is just around the corner.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:24 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
MS doesn’t have to buy Nokia. They are getting everything they want from them already.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:32 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Exactly. Microsoft has no reason to buy Nokia – they’re getting all the hardware benefit with none of the hardware risk. There’s zero reason for them to buy Nokia, and that could change if Nokia makes certain moves, but Nokia doesn’t seem all that interested in being bought.
Partnerships are very, very often more desirable than mergers. Everyone loves to discuss synergies, and there are plenty between Microsoft and Nokia, but those rarely materialize in the way people predict. Partnerships are more often the better move.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:44 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
But wouldn’t a zune hd 2 be great if it had the design and build quality of a nokia handset?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:08 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Microsoft didn’t panic and buy Nokia as Google did with Motorola.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:32 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This, times a million. The Win 7 deal was a partnership, this is an acquisition. Its a stronger bond, yet the official line is “this is good for Android protection”. It basically shows how by the balls Google has the OEMs. Let there be no doubt, “do no evil” has gone the way of the dodo. Google was Microsoft, now they are trying to be Apple. Vertical integration leads to a more compelling product experience. As Nilay said, if this were all about the patents, they could have done the deal very differently and limited it to the patents. This is about competing with the iPhone. Sure Android controls the market handily, but Apple controls the mobile revenue market by an even higher share. The money isn’t in the software, its in the hardware. Now Google has a hardware arm. This effect cannot be understated. And now that they have an in-house hardware arm this will take sales from the other OEMs. They know this, but they are so heavily indebted to Google for giving them a viable platform they can’t express it. WeboOS and Win Phone 7 just got a lot more viable as platforms to OEMs because they are going to need a back up plan now that all Moto phones just became de facto Google phones.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:30 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
don’t forget that they don’t have anything… yet.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:41 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
don’t forget that they don’t have anything… yet.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:41 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Really? This is all about patents, and it sure as hell isn’t about competing with the iPhone. So, Google acquires Moto in order to get the patents to defend itself against the unholy (and anti-competitive) alliance of Oracle, MS, and Apple, and now they’re somehow the bad guy? What are you smoking? Also, you say that “they could have done the deal very differently and limited it to the patents” Actually, you’re making a very stupid assumption. What if Moto didn’t want to license the patents? Furthermore, there is actually evidence that supports this fact, in that there have been rumors that Moto may, in fact, have been in talks to be acquired by MS. Oh, and also, you’re right, “the money isn’t in the software,” it’s in SEARCH (remember, Google’s core business). The idea that Google is somehow trying to become a more vertical company is rubbish.
Posted on Aug 23, 2011 | 2:53 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I’ve seen nothing BUT people saying this will push OEMs away today.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:32 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
that’s the first thing i thought of, but i think that potential indemnification is worth more than potential conflicts for OEMs. this is a brilliant move by google.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:45 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Larry Page: “We conceived of Android as an open-source OS, and it will stay that way. Motorola will stay as an Android OEM”
Of course Moto will have an advantage but I don’t see why a company can’t make hardware while keeping the software open for others to use. Google has an interest in spreading Android as far and as wide as possible. Cutting out HTC, Samsung and others just because they have Motorola doesn’t make any sense.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:49 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Right. Google’s dream is to put Android on as many devices as possible; phones, tablets, dildos, whatever. They are better off creating exciting devices that show Aandroid off, and while letting others do the same.
Google is NOT Apple—they aren’t out to hog tie competition, they are out to CREATE it.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 6:55 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Its easy to create if all they have to do is copy ;)
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 1:42 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Copy what? Linux? In GNU/Linux the “copy” word does not have any sense; even further, it is the core of the philosophy to expand. It is difficult for you “windowsers” to understand the philosophy of the “open source” software.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 7:36 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Heh, sometimes its just too easy.
Why you assume he is a Windows user is beyond me.Android does not meet any of the standard definitions of open source.Contributions to the source are not allowed by Google.Not all Android source is released, anything to do with hardware interaction, pretty important in a smartphone, is not open sourced. Honeycomb is not open sourced at all and probably never will be.Google has and will sue anyone who uses Android without a license.Funniest of all you quote GNU/Linux and are apparently completely unaware that the GNU foundation and various Linux entities are suing Google for modifying source without providing it back to the community. The Java lawsuit in particular is all about GNU copyright.So everything you said is wrong.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:31 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is my new answer to everything.
Samsung 2006 photo frame: http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 8:45 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
My post was about Google/Android. Not any tablet manufacturer. Apple did have their Newton out in 1993 though. And Apple can argue their look and feel to an extent but not so much as to monopolise a category.
Google/Android on the other hand…. Do you remember how the Android reference phones looked prior to 2007. Notice how the G1 looked afterwards.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 8:54 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh, if by copy, you mean in the same way that Apple copied the “look and feel” of Xerox’s UI in Mac OS, then, yes, copy away. ;)
Posted on Aug 23, 2011 | 2:56 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Lol at the Apple copying Xerox UI argument. Tired of hearing it repeated endlessly. The truth of the supposed “copying” is well know Daniel, and is easy to find.
But the gist of it is this;
Xerox PARC gave a 3 day private demo of their newfangled GUI to Steve Jobs/Apple in consideration of a sum of $1m, i.e., 100,000 pre-IPO shares of Apple in 1979. Now did Xerox give away something great for too little? Probably. That would be a reason why they sued Apple in 1989 for ~100m which was dismissed largely in 1990. They lost that case.
Posted on Aug 31, 2011 | 12:18 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Thats another funny one. For one thing you haven’t even read this article. For another you are completely unaware of the lawsuits Google has initiated in the past.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:25 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Your commenting name suits you well.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 7:05 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
There are people who still believe that Android is open source?
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:24 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
clearly you don’t check a diverse set of tech sites
techmeme tends to link to pluses and negatives surrounding big news like this.pull your head from under the rock son
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 2:40 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Because google’s android operating system can be downloaded by anyone, even without Google’s approval. But it’s in googles best interest to push android even further because of a higher market share, ie more revenue from their free services that are ad-supported.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:56 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Wrong, only part of the code can be downloaded and licenses are required to use it.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:31 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Wrong, you only need licenses for google services such as market, youtube, gmail. You can download android without these programs.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 5:39 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
i think a lot of you are missing the bigger picture. it is in google’s interest to spread android as far as possible, if its purpose is to protect its golden egg: search. google is an advertising company. apple and microsoft came after their search and ad businesses before google ever dreamed of making a phone OS. the future, so we’re told, is on phones. google can’t afford to leave its future in the hands of such hostile competitors, who might choke off access without notice.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 3:37 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
While I agree the main point is that Google is looking for patents, you’d be silly to think there’s nothing else going on. Google just acquired a major mobile hardware producer, they’re going to do SOMETHING with those assets.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:22 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Absolutely, but for the immediate future they will say the right things and play nice with other OEM’s. I’d guess in a year or two that will change.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:39 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Well, hard to say. Google’s communication so far, covered by the media, has consistently been patent protection. Maybe that’s a smoke trail intended to lead us astray from the real master-mind plan, but at the moment, it appears to be staunchly patent protection for the Android ecosystem.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:33 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Most likely they will sell them. If they can get anyone to buy them. Motorola tried for a long time and nobody was dumb enough to buy them
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:38 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
What about (potential) lawsuits or agreements like MS-HTC and similar? Surely this should help HTC and other oems against other android lawsuits?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:22 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Killing-1000-birds-with-12.5bil-stones Dept.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:23 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
It has become a patent cold war, everyone’s stock piling nukes/patents
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:24 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Yeah and I hope Google doesn’t start firing them like Apple and Microsoft.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:44 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Risky, risky, risky. Big acquisitions are always very difficult to pull off at the integration stage. And what will HTC and Samsung feel about having to compete with pure Google hardware (with ex-Moto engineers seeing Android code well in advance of them)? Stronger versus Apple, weaker versus Microsoft?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:28 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Nilay, the fact that YOU don’t get it, doesn’t mean it’s a bad move by google or that it will be difficult. You and I have no clue how they will play it.
This Article has told us NOTHING new.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:30 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
big question is will this solve all of Androids litigation problems?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:31 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
they paid 12.5b because Google likely wants a hardware arm for their phones but doesn’t want to upset that apple cart just yet
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:33 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
they paid 12.5b because Google likely wants a hardware arm for their phones but doesn’t want to upset that apple cart just yet
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:33 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Great breakdown Nilay. Learning we can rely on you for a jargon free explanation, which means a lot!
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:36 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Great breakdown Nilay. Learning we can rely on you for a jargon free explanation, which means a lot!
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:36 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This does do one thing Google didn’t expect……make the other OEM’s take another good long look at WP7.
But this won’t solve all Googles liltigation issues IMO. They’re behind as it is.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:36 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This does do one thing Google didn’t expect……make the other OEM’s take another good long look at WP7.
But this won’t solve all Googles liltigation issues IMO. They’re behind as it is.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:36 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
As long as the OS remains free and open source, it still looks like a better deal compared to WP7.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:45 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
of course they expected it. therefore all the emphasis on patent, patent, patent in the press release, and the OEM’s scripted quotes on ’we’re glad google is committed to protect the android ecosystem blah blah. Microsoft’s already in bed with Nokia, they’re not any more reliable than Google as a partner.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:43 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is probably the dumbest thing Google has ever done.
1. Android partners will now have to differentiate themselves even further, increasing that time between Android updates even further in the process.
2. Just like the fast food industry did in the 80’s when Pepsi bought KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, all the remaining competing franchises switched over to Coke products as to not help their competition by staying with Pepsi. This will help Windows Phone and WebOS a great deal, especially if HP decides to license WebOS.
Conclusion, I think Google just opened the door for more competition in the mobile space and frankly just shot themselves in the foot. It won’t kill them, but it sure will hurt them. Meanwhile Apple is probably laughing all the way to the bank.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:41 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you really think android partners are going to want to delay their custom UIs even more, now that Motorola is owned by google? And I think Samsung and HTC are pretty comfortable with their own Android forks.
I’m hoping this leads to a strengthening of the core manufacturers and curbs the dilution of the OS
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 2:38 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Do you really think android partners are going to want to delay their custom UIs even more, now that Motorola is owned by google? And I think Samsung and HTC are pretty comfortable with their own Android forks.
I’m hoping this leads to a strengthening of the core manufacturers and curbs the dilution of the OS
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 2:38 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
What would have been the reaction if Apple had acquired Moto Mobility? Probably not good. But because Google purchased everyone is happy? My how people forget. It was just a few days ago google was complaining about Patents. Have fun with a very poorly performing company.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:46 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Well… If apple bought Motorola Mobility it would need to shut down 90% of the workforce because they’ll still only make ONE phone. Whereas With Google they’ll still make phones and share their patents with Google. Also, Apple is the aggressor and Goofle isn’t…
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:39 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Difference lies in Apple already being a hardware company. Buying Motorola Mobility would’ve seem like monopolic expansion, thus igniting a lot of fires here and there.
I think that Motorola can use this investment to thrust their lineup and maybe as a big thanks card towards Google, who seems to be saving their asses quite a lot recently.
In other news, Motorola is a US based international company. AFAIK the only phone manufacturing alive —besides Apple. Their demise would be hard in the pocket for a lot of people.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:41 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Because ios is a closed ecosystem and android is an open one. What part of this do people not understand?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:57 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you kidding me?? What part of that term don’t you understand? Open doesn’t mean stealing Java Code. Why is it that for me to have a app developed for IOS is cheaper than Android. Why are there countless amounts of Malware for Android? I will take the locked down system anytime.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 8:50 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Are you kidding me?? What part of that term don’t you understand? Open doesn’t mean stealing Java Code. Why is it that for me to have a app developed for IOS is cheaper than Android. Why are there countless amounts of Malware for Android? I will take the locked down system anytime.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 8:50 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
You’ve drank the kool aid. Most people have figured out Googles “open” scam by now.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:34 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
open huh?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/googles-highly-proprietary-source-code-unfair-edge-for-motorola/3783
Posted on Aug 18, 2011 | 12:55 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
If AAPL bought MMI? I think they might have had anti-trust hurdles to overcome first… and mostly with respect to MMI’s patents and not any gain in market dominance. Apple has been known to sue to protect its IP and FTC might look askance handing over 17k more to them.
But you’re right. Would have been a right brouhaha if Apple had bid for Moto Mobility.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 1:53 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
In addition to owning intellectual property that defends and secures the Android platform, how about the notion that Google might be interested in making real money by selling millions of phones and tablets. err…look at Apple.
And how about a small licensing fee for the Android OS to partners?
It is probably time for Google to stop “dumping” the OS onto the market…
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:47 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
As a Google shareholder this seems like a prudent defensive move. However, I wonder about the judgement of Google’s senior management. From the Oracle suit it is clear that Google long ago knew that Android had IP infringement issues. If they had properly addressed them before Android’s release they could have saved shareholders many billions of dollars. Google’s lax attitude to intellectual property is proving to be very expensive in the long run. Unfortunately I doubt this will change anything at Google.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:48 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is probably why Googles shares are flat since the release of android. APPL has quadrupled since the release of the iPhone.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 8:38 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is all Frank Shaws fault.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:49 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Hey Nilay, wasn’t there a blog discovered recently which OK’ed Google use of java by the company (then) CEO?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:49 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
all well and good. i don’t think google would make a microsoft-nokia type deal with motorola, as that would leave a sour taste in their partners mouths. wouldn’t be good for Android.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:49 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Google could totally screw HTC and Samsung right now… or at least once the deal closes.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:49 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Unlike Apple, Google wants Android in as many devices as possible, that will include HTC and Samsung in the long term.
Google follows the “The more the Merrier” attitude to Apple’s “I’ll take my ball an go home” attitude
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:23 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
True.
Google should’ve bought Samsung. Then they could’ve screwed Apple, their new second largest customer.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 9:44 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Compare the net worth of Samsung and Google. Now realize that would never happen.
Second tyr to understand that Apple are masters of the supply chain and are sourcing parts from other vendors. Also the Samsung board and shareholders would revolt if Samsung stopped selling to Apple.
Thats how it works in the real world outside of internet forums.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:45 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Please don’t treat me like an idiot, because I am not an idiot. I was already aware of most of your points, and if google did buy samsung they could make a merger agreement, so the samsung board is dissipated anyways.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 3:14 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Please don’t treat me like an idiot, because I am not an idiot. I was already aware of most of your points, and if google did buy samsung they could make a merger agreement, so the samsung board is dissipated anyways.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 3:14 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Ugh, this is stupid.
But don’t forget, it’s us that’s broken, not the patent system.
Sure.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:52 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
’It’s easy to see why Google and Motorola joined forces to make the most
out of Moto’s patents — but now they’ve got to explain how they’ll make
the most out of what actually matters: Motorola’s products."
That’s actually rather simple Nilay. You’ll now have a platform (hw and sw) that should be the perfect marriage between stock Android and its hw; Google’s answer to the iPhone methinks.
Great analysis btw. Thank you.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:52 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
In related news, SkyHook Wireless is still screwed.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:57 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is huge, no doubt. Google needed those patents, and while Motorola Mobility didn’t necessarily need to be bought out, it sure doesn’t hurt to be formally assimilated into Google’s infrastructure. Instead of having to make it on their own two feet, they’re now going to be taken care of via Google’s deep pockets, for litigation and otherwise.
@d0mth0ma5:disqus While patent wars do sound like mutually assured destruction, I don’t think they HAVE to be. For a second there, nothing mutual was guaranteed. People with the bigger patent portfolios (Apple, Microsoft, etc.) were planning to do the destroying. The best Google could do was try and either stall or get things thrown out as prior art. Now we’re getting more into a deterrence/MAD scenario.
And as far as speculation goes, there’s a lot that isn’t being brought up here (probably to lack editorializing, which is fine), but if anyone is so inclined, I’ve penned a somewhat thorough post at my personal, humble abode.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:03 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
of course they needed to be bought out, they were underperforming and losing money. They didn’t just decide today to sell, they have been on the market for sometime now.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:09 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
You’re right. They couldn’t hold a candle to the products being made by HTC, Samsung, and even Apple. Did you hear about Jha talking about potentially charging licensing fees to other Android OEMs? That would have gotten ugly, too, but fortunately this helps prevent that altogether.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:11 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is a right move by Google with its weak patent profile… Imagine If Google looses patent war against the Apple and Microsoft, they will have to pay 60USD/Android device according to the expected law-suits… How much it will cost them?? Instead, they wisely thought and bought Motorola Mobility keeping the Eco-system still open to all other Android Manufacturers… Now Google has high-end patent profile, better Hardware and the best Operating system… Indeed, Motorola has always helped Google for better product enhancements with DROID/MILESTONE on smartphones and XOOM on tables… Motorola is the first and oldest mobile phone maker with patents more than 17K… For sure, It really helps Google a lot… Now there will be Google Stores… It will be very interesting to see where this merge takes the technology…………
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:04 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
And Google just went as direct as you ever could imagine towards the home as humanly possible.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:26 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I don’t think it’s a question of how Google will leverage the acquisition regarding Motorola products. We saw this with the Droid and Xoom. Having a device manufacturer, now integrated, Google can take advantage of that in the form of hardware/software development and integration. We’ll like see some nice Google Experience devices in all different form factors, from smartphones, tablets to maybe even set-top boxes featuring Google TV. Motorola Mobility has all sorts of support in around consumers and enterprise.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:30 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Does this mean that future Motorola phones will all be Nexus, Blurless varieties?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:35 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I can’t imagine them leaving the DROID branding.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 2:02 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
IDCC (NASDAQ) is tanking (another patent play)…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-15/google-agrees-to-acquisition-of-motorola-mobility-for-about-12-5-billion.html
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 11:55 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Motorola’s Android hardware has always been very good, but was hamstrung by Motoblur and the need to differentiate. Now the opportunity exists for a major hardware player to differentiate by pushing stock Android!
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:04 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
“internal Google emails showing that the company decided to use Java without a proper license have recently been revealed.”
What’s wrong with that? Java is not the problem with Oracle! The problem is about the use of Sun/Oracle implementation of Java (JVM) which Google didn’t use (they use Apache Harmony implementation of Java).
Wikipedia: “… Sun relicensed most of its Java technologies under the GNU General Public License. Others have also developed alternative implementations of these Sun technologies, such as the GNU Compiler for Java, GNU Classpath, and Dalvik.”
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:52 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
You are utterly wrong. Negative points for quoting wikipedia as an authoritative source. Do some research to avoid further embarrassment.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:43 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
“internal Google emails showing that the company decided to use Java without a proper license have recently been revealed.”
What’s wrong with that? Java is not the problem with Oracle! The problem is about the use of Sun/Oracle implementation of Java (JVM) which Google didn’t use (they use Apache Harmony implementation of Java).
Wikipedia: “… Sun relicensed most of its Java technologies under the GNU General Public License. Others have also developed alternative implementations of these Sun technologies, such as the GNU Compiler for Java, GNU Classpath, and Dalvik.”
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:52 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Q. Why buy the whole company?
A. It came free when bought the patents.
Q. Why buy Motorola?
A. Not many other options. Google needed an extensive telecom/mobile IP portfolio.
Q. Why does Google need such broad patent protection?
A. So Google can indemnify the hundreds (thousands) of upcoming Android HW vendors.
… and in the process drive Android HW cost down to near zero.
HTC is paying $5/unit to Microsoft for every Android phone it ships. Google needs to stop such silliness Acquiring Motorola mobility is the break out move Google needed.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:57 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Q. Why buy the whole company?
A. It came free when bought the patents.
Q. Why buy Motorola?
A. Not many other options. Google needed an extensive telecom/mobile IP portfolio.
Q. Why does Google need such broad patent protection?
A. So Google can indemnify the hundreds (thousands) of upcoming Android HW vendors.
… and in the process drive Android HW cost down to near zero.
HTC is paying $5/unit to Microsoft for every Android phone it ships. Google needs to stop such silliness Acquiring Motorola mobility is the break out move Google needed.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 12:57 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
“it’s still curious why Google spent the full $12.5b on Motorola”
A partial answer…
First, most reports I’ve seen indicate MMI has 17,000 issued patents (not the 12,500 you are reporting). Second, as of July, MMI had zero LT debt and over $3B in cash making the actual price $9.5B
Third, everyone is focusing on the mobile side of things and ignoring the upside potential for GoogleTV (which has gone nowhere so far) that comes with the acquisition of Motorola’s set top box business.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:04 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Most of those patents are useless.
But it is amusing that so many people think Motos cheap, crappy commodity setop boxes are of an value.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:42 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
“it’s still curious why Google spent the full $12.5b on Motorola”
A partial answer…
First, most reports I’ve seen indicate MMI has 17,000 issued patents (not the 12,500 you are reporting).
Second, as of July, MMI had zero LT debt and over $3B in cash making the actual price $9.5B
Third, everyone is focusing on the mobile side of things and ignoring the upside potential for GoogleTV (which has gone nowhere so far) that comes with the acquisition of Motorola’s set top box business.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:05 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Agreed. This is a great move to integrate google tv into cable and satalite boxes. It’s the only chance google TV has to succeed.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:58 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Moto makes low end commodity cable boxes and set tops. It would take years to turn them into something like what you and others suggest.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:35 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Nilay,
I fail to see how the acquisition of Motorola will effect the Oracle vs. Google war
Oracle is suing Google for using their java VM source code for the Dalvik VM
that has nothing to do with patents. they just literally copy-pasted code that belonged to sun/oracle
what are “patents on networking and video encoding” are going to change ?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:08 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
It gives Google leverage to negotiate a settlement with Oracle. While Google held next to nothing that might interest Oracle, with these video and networking patents that may change.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 3:09 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
No it doesn’t. Oracle could care less since they don’t make anything the ancient Moto patents would cover.
This should be obvious unless you have bought an Oracle smartphone lately.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:40 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Its not patents in that case its copyright.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:39 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I want the nexus evo!!!
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:31 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
The EVO line is made by HTC.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:59 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This would be a pleasant acquisition for Motorola users if this happens. That mean’s we’ll see updates the same way the Nexus One and Nexus S gets them. With hopefully a clean Android build away from the Motoblur UI. I hope this does happen it would make buying my Atrix an even more attractive phone.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:32 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I hope more android phones get fingerprint readers for unlocking the phones out of this, but I’m sure Motorola Mobility will keep that to themselves for being competitive. I am really jealous of my friend’s Atrix for this reason.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:48 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Nilay, I think Dan Lyons said something similar but with a little more pizzazz: http://realdanlyons.com/blog/2011/08/15/suck-on-it-applesoft/
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 1:55 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
If this goes through, within a year Motorola will have a phone lineup called " the Google experience." All stock Android, just the way it should be.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 2:22 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I think you underestimate the power the American carriers have over what devices connect to their network. That power will only increase as LTE bands are specific to the carrier, eliminating the opportunity for consumers to connect an unlocked GSM phone to AT&T and use LTE data.
I think it is the Sprint NexusS 4G that requires a monthly charge for the privilege of data tethering. Which shows that even google’s nexus program isn’t immune to carrier influence.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 7:19 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
"…it’s still curious why Google spent the full $12.5b on Motorola, instead of a smaller amount acquiring the rights to Moto’s patents…"
Not being in the Googleplex this weekend, I can only speculate: MMI isn’t worth $1 billion without the patent portfolio. They have been losing money on their handset business and have been losing share to other, more nimble and cheap Android OEMs. For those of you who’ve never run a company or done financial analysis, losing both market share AND money is a bad combo, a risk to your future existence, patent issues or no.
The set-top business is likewise probably also unprofitable and shrinking.
My wild-ass SWAG was that MMI wasted a year of its constrained engineering resources designing and shipping the Xoom, and that led to their taking their eye off the handset ball, ergo their tough situation.
Google now doesn’t have to apologize for the non-existent profit margins on Androids. At least until LG, Sony-Ericcson and others do the math & come to the conclusions suggested above, that this deal does them next to no good.
A PS regards the Oracle suit: is the article saying that MMI and ORCL did NOT have a cross-licensing deal in place for MMI’s patents? It’d seem that a company where its portfolio was such a large part of its worth, would’ve already been licensing out everything that Oracle actually needs.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 2:24 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
I wonder if Google ever considered buying RIM. That would of given them the Nortel patents (maybe they aren’t transferable though), and RIM’s encrypted email is the only one not susceptible to man in the middle attacks (I think).
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 3:11 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Actually it is.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:41 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
“The Oracle case is probably the most significant to the Android ecosystem right now”. Yes, but Google and its OEMs non-compliance with the GPLv2 license for the Linux underpinnings of Android will backfire badly… soon.If you distribute software (such as Linux) under the GPLv2 for commercial purposes, you must make its “complete corresponding machine-readable source code” available. Google has frequently “locked down” Android source code and the OEMs fail to provide the source code for their particular distribution of Android and ultimately Linux.Non-compliance “will automatically terminate your rights under [the GPLv2]”. That’s the situation in which virtually every Android OEM is now. And it’s not sufficient to just comply with any future release of the same open source software. By losing the original GPL-based license grant, you’re unlicensed and need to strike a new deal with each and every original right holder (contributor).So, in theory Android have lost its rights under GPLv2 for distribution of Linux, and it is only a matter of time before the free software acolytes will protest this mockery of their religion and gang up on Android.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 5:50 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Excellent analysis Nilay. Thanks.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 7:10 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
If I were one of the phone or tablet manufacturers besides Moto using Android, I’d be none too pleased about the prospect of being reliant on Google for an OS when Google is also likely to be making their own phones in the not so distant future.
Wasn’t there speculation that Moto was exploring options to distance itself from Google as the result of experiences like the Skyhook brouhaha?
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 7:37 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Oh man… what a bore. What a sad, sorry bore all of this is.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 8:26 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Why do people try and parallel this with the idea of MS buying Nokia? MS does not need the patent protection the Google is looking for.
Posted on Aug 15, 2011 | 10:33 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
They bought the whole company because Motorola wasn´t willing to sell ónly patents´!
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 6:04 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
The question is if Moto’s patents were so great why haven’t they used them in suing Apple? They only have a few weak patents in the Apple lawsuit. Most of the Moto patents are not relevant.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 2:41 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
In a world where 6,000 domain patents are worth 4.5 billion, 23,000 domain patents should be worth 12.5 billion. The manufacturing business was a nice freebie, like the mint on your pillow at a hotel. The real question is why are these patents worth so much money.
I wouldn’t be surprised if they seriously downsized Motorola and carried on with their current strategy. Motorola wasn’t coming anywhere near winning in the mobile space…losing money a market that’s growing like gangbusters is a mean feat.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 7:42 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
You know I have to ask this… I get the respect most of you give Nilay for his comments. He was, WAS, going to be an attorney after all. But last I checked he isn’t a practicing attorney. He writes articles on a tech blog. I think I’ll defer to the real attorneys, you the ones that work at Apple, Goodle, & Microsoft. Your know the ones that have ALL the relevant documents & information & actually negotiate the deals. They have a better ounderstandingf all of ihu
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 9:25 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
He’s the next best thing to one of those attorneys actually coming on here and writing a (obviously biased) post. If you know why practicing patent attorneys with a good grip on the mobile industry writing in tech journalism please throw a name out instead of just ripping on him.
Posted on Aug 17, 2011 | 10:31 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Funny I didn’t “Rip” on him at all. It was more of a general comment in regards to how easily in the tech blog world readers like you are so easily swayed & manipulated to believe what somebody writes who isn’t even a participant in the process. But hey to each their own so good for you.
Posted on Aug 17, 2011 | 11:31 AM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
They also got Motorola’s set-top boxes in this deal.
If they install Google search on them they can use TVs as another channel for ad revenue.
They can also send users to Android Marketplace.
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 1:15 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
San Francisco’s Xconomy blog has a brilliant metaphorical take on what has likely happened to the Android OEM family and what may now ensue with this acquisition:
“Google is like the banker at the poker game who’s suddenly dealt himself in. The other players may be too deep into the game to step away—or they may decide to cash in their chips and go to another casino.”
Beat that!
Posted on Aug 16, 2011 | 1:49 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
This is all about patents. Motorola does not worth 12.5 Billion, but its patents does! I am not sure how Apple feels these days :)
Posted on Aug 22, 2011 | 5:04 PM EDT reply Recommend Flag actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed