The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#2The link here isn't exactly the right one - the same thing happened to me when I tried sharing this article previously as well (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28933313). Either we both pasted the wrong URL or maybe HN trims off the hashtag part of the URL (with the #capital-as-power on the end of the URL).
Anyways, the correct link is https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/20/vizio-vs-the-world/#capit....
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#3What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is.
"This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance."
No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hiking prices is certainly one form of that, but so was forming a monopoly. Microsoft was prosecuted for forming a monopoly and reducing consumer choices.
"Google's true operating costs aren't captured by adding up its salaries and servers – a correct accounting must include the costs of acquiring companies and with them, patents. That's the cost Google must incur, if is to retain its power."
No, Cory, those are not "operating costs," those are called "capital costs." They're treated real differently in Accounting.
I was part of this "acquire patents" effort at Google. I actually interviewed people to be in Legal whose job would be to acquire patents. The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. There was no thought of actually asserting these patents against Microsoft, or anyone.
I actually used some of our internal tools to assess our patent portfolio. Most of those Motorola patents were worthless.
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#4What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is. " This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance. " No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hi…
> I was part of this "acquire patents" effort at Google. I actually interviewed people to be in Legal whose job would be to acquire patents. The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued.
Interesting! Can you expand on this topic? Does/has the strategy work?
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#5The link here isn't exactly the right one - the same thing happened to me when I tried sharing this article previously as well ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28933313 ). Either we both pasted the wrong URL or maybe HN trims off the hashtag part of the URL (with the #capital-as-power on the end of the URL). Anyways, the correct link is https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/20/vizio-vs-the-world/#capit... .
I definitely submitted the URL with the hash-mark and fragment[0], so HN must strip it off.
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#6What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is. " This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance. " No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hi…
> The theory (since discarded) was that a heavy patent portfolio would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued. There was no thought of actually asserting these patents against Microsoft, or anyone.
Doesn't it kind of prove part of the argument?
Google apparently felt threatened by patents, enough so to acquire "second strike capabilities" as deterrence.
Seems to me Google though patents aggressive tools with the purpose to hurt other companies or threatening to do so (though defensively in this case).
I am really interested in the "since discarded" part, if someone can recommend some reading.
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#7What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is. " This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance. " No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hi…
All of this information could have been delivered without also delivering personal insults on the side.
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#8What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is. " This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance. " No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hi…
I doubt the little guy acquiring patents at behest of some corporate initiative from executives actually necessarily gets told the real reason. It would leave an paper trail for antitrust. "Would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued" is the exact kind of generic motivation you'd want on something that's real purposes could look worse in an antitrust trial.
Especially in light of stuff like "Google training documents advise avoiding monopoly language": https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/7/21358441/google-alphabet-t...
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#9Things like OIN[0] didn't exist when MS and Google bought companies to strip them of their patents. They do exist now, and it's basically a truce over fighting on patents.
The Bork view on anti-trust definitely has favored these companies, and Apple and Google can absolutely be accused of having and using monopoly power to keep competitors out. Google pays to be the default search engine on iOS (keeping competitors out), and Apple denies fair platform access to software it thinks has a chance at competing with it's ecosystem (Tile, etc..). Amazon and Facebook can be accused of this pretty easily too (restricting 3rd party sellers, restricting API access respectively).
The law[1] is pretty clear on this, but bills exactly like [2] and [3] would clear it up more, which I believe Cory Doctrow supports, at least from reading his Twitter.
[0] https://openinventionnetwork.com/
[1] https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-...
[2] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3825...
[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3816...
Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars
#10What an ignorant blowhard Cory Doctorow is. " This is a great strategy in light of US anittrust [sic] theories over the past 40 years, during which time antitrust regulators promised to leave companies alone as they formed monopolies, provided they didn't hike price after attaining monopoly dominance. " No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." The new theory of anti-trust was "consumer harm." Hi…
I doubt the little guy acquiring patents at behest of some corporate initiative from executives actually necessarily gets told the real reason. It would leave an paper trail for antitrust. "Would give you a better negotiating position if you were sued" is the exact kind of generic motivation you'd want on something that's real purposes could look worse in an antitrust trial. Especially in light of stuff like "Google…
The entire point of the patent system is to provide a legal monopoly, as written in the Constitution. It's not a dirty secret.