| > Prevent what outcome. From the link I pasted: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/appeals-court-uph... "The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld (PDF) a 2013 jury verdict finding that Motorola must pay Microsoft $14.5 million for violating its commitments to license certain standard-essential patents on a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) basis." >Motorola and Microsoft did. As the timeline I posted shows, Google owned Motorola for a significant portion of the duration of the lawsuit, most importantly the part where they got penalized. > If your argument is that after the the acquisition, Google should have went behind the backs of Moto's lawyers who had been working 8 months on this case and done something... Uh, yes? If you're putting out a bunch of PR about how other companies are using patents to "attack" Android, you should not end up the only company penalized for actually abusing patents. You can't say, "Oh, it's a company we fully own, but we can't really control their lawyers and waste their efforts." You know who else plays the "shell company" game, right? |
1.) FTA, Google didn't abuse any patents - Microsoft used its patents to attack Android. Sure Google lost, but your claim that Google abused patents isn't backed up here, Microsoft was the aggressor and Google lost. Google has every right to believe that other companies are using patents to attack Android - thats exactly what MS did here. Show me a case where Google actively sought out to use their patents to sue someone else and then you have a point.
FWIW, the case in question isn't new, everyone else decided to play ball and pay MS 1% of all revenue except Motorola, which leads to...
2.) The litigation covers a period of time independent of Google. Are you seriously implying Google is the bad actor here when the litigation is over something that happened BEFORE Google acquired moto? Or are you trying to imply every Android manufacturer (Samsung, LG, HTC) are all just shell companies for Google (even though all the other "shell" companies decided to play ball with MS)?
3.) >you should not end up the only company penalized for actually abusing patents.
I guess we are just going to close our eyes and ears over Apple's 1B injunction against samsung over rounded corners?