[icarus_drowning]

Because Gruber's summary of the entire story is "I think Apple and Microsoft probably feel pretty good, competitively, about having forced Google into spending $12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management", which ignores the single most salient factor in the deal. Ultimately, Gruber would like us to believe that, all things aside, Google has bought a crappy handset maker, rather than a massive patent portfolio.

[tjogin]

That patent portfolio can't be that threatening to neither Apple nor Microsoft, considering the fact that both companies are already in litigation against Motorola and those specific patents, and so far it's not looking grim.

[GHFigs]

So now we're down to judging entire stories based on whether the last sentence includes what you think is the most important thing about it? Why even read the whole thing if you're going to ignore almost all of it?

[icarus_drowning]

Look, this is Gruber's bottom line, all of his caveats aside. At the end of the day, that's how he views this story, and I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that this is going to be a fairly succinct example of his thinking and arguments going forward.

That strategy is going to conveniently rely on his readers forgetting his near-obsession with Google's supposed doom at the hands of Apple and Microsoft's patent portfolios.

That's why it is a reversal-- because patents, once so important, probably aren't going to factor into his incessant Google criticism in the future, despite the fact that he has made them the cornerstone of many of his arguments until now.

[GHFigs]

I don't see a bit of sense in that.

On the one hand, you're complaining about his supposed "near-obsession" (as opposed to every other person writing on the subject? what's the measurement here?) but on the other you're saying that one sentence is proof that it was all some kind of ruse and he'll never speak of it again. As if patents not figuring into one sentence means he can never say anything about them again. What a great leap that is! He's trying to make a point about something, but you're treating it as if it's a total retraction of every other point he's ever tried to make--even in the same post--because...why? Because it's not just a restatement of what he said last week, in a different context? I don't understand that at all, even under the banner of HN's predictably frothing meme of disdain for the man.

Not only do I not understand that, I don't understand how on earth one man gets such scrutiny about precisely how much he talks about something, down to the sentence, when dozens of sites have been publishing on the same subjects. This is news. When new things happen, people write about them. Google bought Motorola. That's news. But must Gruber (or anyone) interpret or discuss that solely in terms of patents (or any one angle)? Why is commenting on any other aspect of the deal forbidden? Makes no sense.

[amatheus]

Frankly, I can't understand what's your point with this phrase. I think he obviously meant Google paid 12.5 billion for Motorola — a handset maker with rapidly declining sales, no recent profits, and misguided management - _only for the patents_. He's not ignoring the most salient factor in the deal; he's just reaffirming that, to get to the patents, Google paid 12.5 billion for the whole, including the bad parts that he's highlighting.