Hacker News Reader

Comment by yanw | Hacker News Reader

You seem to have misunderstood the whole thing (if you have even read any of it), they haven't retracted anything nor changed their position.

There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then they couldn't use the patents to block Microsoft from extorting handset makers which defeats the whole purpose. It's not about buying patents for the sake of having patents.

If any of the reporters had bothered to ask an IP lawyer all this would have been made clear to them, but they unthinkingly quote Tweets and print comments from Florian Muller instead.

And are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?! I very much urge you to think on that.

View on HN

There is no sense in buying patents jointly with Microsoft because then couldn't they use the patent to block

Of course not. But you take those patents off the table. It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with. Even under reasonable terms, if MS gets enough patents, they could raise licensing fees such that doing WP over Android is a no-brainer. Now the Android licensing fees are just a nuisance.

Also are you actually suggesting that producing IP is more efficient and quicker than buying it?!

Yes (well cheaper -- not quicker). At least buying targeted patents. These large portfolios are going for about $500k-$750k per patent. I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought.

The big advantage they get w/ buying is the patents are available now. But this is why this is a firing offense. Everyone else in the industry has been building up their IP warchest for some time. Apple telegraphed it years ago that they'd fight with patents in the mobile space. Google seems to be surprised.

>I wouldn't be surprised if Google paid $1M each for the 1,000 IBM patents they bought.

A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly, and IBM would have no reason to keep it quiet. This was strategic for IBM (which is actually a bizarrely responsible corporation): They have a strategic interest in seeing Google empowered.

A billion dollar transaction does not happen quietly

It wasn't very quiet (that it happened). People think Nokia may have gotten $630M from Apple as licensing fees showed up in the quarterly report. Of course there isn't a line item that says, "From Apple". My point is that people just knew a transaction took place, but didn't know the price. This is the same thing with IBM. Maybe IBM sold for less, but they're not stupid. They could empower Google and get a lot of money at the same time. As you say, IBM is responsible, and responsible companies don't leave money on the table.

Terms of these sorts of private negotations and settlements are usually kept quiet. Often part of the agreement itself.

> It's 7,000 fewer patents you have to deal with

Those patents can become harmless if Google acquires some other patents Microsoft and Apple infringe and force them into cross-licensing.

Obviously, Apple and Microsoft would be more inclined to litigate because an unencumbered Android would doom their respective mobile platforms (Apple less than Microsoft, in this case)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com