Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

pluralistic.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#31

Post by AlbertCory »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy. It’s frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often. There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”. What’s more, you don’t need such a theory to explain what’s going on here. If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law. All large firms are at least occ…

"Everything is about power": this reminds me of the 4-year-old who's just discovered a dirty word, and revels in its effect of shocking the grownups, so he yells it at every opportunity.

Yes, boys and girls, "power" is sometimes a motivator. There are other ones, though. Maybe read a few more books.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#32

Post by ece »

AlbertCory wrote: post #26
ece wrote: post #9

Things 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 o…

Re [0], there are zillions of these "open patent" initiatives. Every week a new one comes along. It's easy to get lots of tiny companies to sign up for them. It's a lot harder to get anyone with a really valuable patent. As for the Bork view: all those things you mentioned are "consumer harm" and are not protected. It would be a lot more fruitful to look at the lobbyist spending by the tech giants, and the Astroturf…

OIN includes Google and Microsoft, and 43 other pages of companies big and small: https://openinventionnetwork.com/download/48946/

I hope the current lawsuits against these companies over the exactly the things I mentioned should be easily decided then, and we won't need the bills I linked.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#33

Post by cma »

gowld wrote: post #10
cma wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A limited time monopoly on an invention. But antitrust laws are allowed to break up stuff with too much power if they engage in certain practices, and this can split up a patent portfolio amongst the parts.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#34

Post by johncena33 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #7
AlbertCory wrote: post #3

What 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.

Well, it wouldn't be HN if people couldn't post angry rants about Google. 10% of HN is just a group of same people complaining about Google again and again. Anytime I see a link about Google, I know there wouldn't be any insightful discussion. Just same people complaining endlessly about the same things. I wish mods would do a better job moderating this relentless tirades.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#35

Post by AlbertCory »

dang wrote: post #24
AlbertCory wrote: post #3

What 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…

Please make your substantive points without name-calling and personal attacks. You broke the site guidelines badly here. This is particularly important when your view of the underlying issue is actually correct, because if you post like this about it, you end up discrediting not only yourself but also the truth [1], and that hurts everybody. We're really trying to avoid that sort of internet dynamic here. I certainly…

OK.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#36

Post by Snild »

AlbertCory wrote: post #14
orangeoxidation wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 to…

It only "prove[s] part of the argument" if you rephrase the argument to your liking. You are also conflating "defensive" and "aggressive." Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males.

Just to offer a more benevolent interpretation: I read that "Google thought patents aggressive tools" sentence not necessarily as any implication of Google's intent, but rather an implication that Google were worried about patents being used as weapons against them.

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#37

Post by jgalt212 »

guerrilla wrote: post #23
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy. It’s frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often. There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”. What’s more, you don’t need such a theory to explain what’s going on here. If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law. All large firms are at least occ…

> There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking” How is the theory of market power combined with everything else we know not that? [1] It seems obviously in the firms interest even if their primary motive were still profit since it ensures increased rates of profit (modulo risk of a regulatory smackdown.) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power

yes, but if you get powerful enough there is no regulatory smackdown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34397551-the-chickenshit...

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#38

Post by AlbertCory »

rektide wrote: post #21
AlbertCory wrote: post #3

What 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…

Wow uh.... hitting a bit hard there. This seems like a very strong reaction, to something that seems straightforward & accurate to me. So you've found a couple bones to pick to justify these insults you're gunning to fire... here's my view on them. > No, Cory, that's not what happened and there was no "promise." Borkism's "consumer harm" theory has, in almost all cases, been centered around hiking prices. Given the l…

> "That you can cite a single 20 year old Microsoft case"

OK, do you want some more? How about [1]?

If your point is that the tech giants have not faced enough anti-trust litigation: you'd have to define "enough" as "sufficient to break them up." Because they're still here.

The EU has been all over them, and almost every state AG is joining in an anti-trust suit against them. Congress investigates them every week, and we might eventually see some legislation. Democracy is slow. But yeah, more is better.

Your last two paragraphs rely on a false premise: "a constant ongoing stream of acquisitions." If there are acquisitions going on, it's not for patents -- it's to eliminate competitors. That's not a defect of IP laws; it's a matter for legislation and anti-trust action. Which I support.

[1] https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings/151-0065/s...

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#39

Post by AlbertCory »

some_furry wrote: post #25
AlbertCory wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only "prove[s] part of the argument" if you rephrase the argument to your liking. You are also conflating "defensive" and "aggressive." Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males.

> Kinda like saying Switzerland is "aggressive" because they have mandatory military service for all males. I'm curious: Have you heard of the state's "monopoly on violence" before? It comes up a lot in political theory discussions, and it applies to this attempted rebuttal by analogy.

I've certainly heard of that theory. How is that relevant to "defensive" vs. "aggressive"? You're saying Switzerland is aggressive because they have a military?

Re: The monopoly strategy behind the Google/Microsoft mobile patent wars

#40

Post by huitzitziltzin »

guerrilla wrote: post #23
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #13

Cory Doctorow is ignorant of economics and competition policy. It’s frustrating to see his thoughts shared here so often. There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”. What’s more, you don’t need such a theory to explain what’s going on here. If you want to explain why Google paid so much for Motorola, you can do so via the various defects in intellectual property law. All large firms are at least occ…

> There is no credible economic theory of firm “power seeking” How is the theory of market power combined with everything else we know not that? [1] It seems obviously in the firms interest even if their primary motive were still profit since it ensures increased rates of profit (modulo risk of a regulatory smackdown.) 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_power

Market power is a well defined economic concept. I am an economist who works on that issue. If he wants to talk about market power I think that would be great! (Though not as an explanation for this case.)

Indeed, I said I thought he was ignorant of economics in part bc he brought up this weird “capital as power” thing which has nothing to do (AFAICT) with actual market power as we understand it.

Furthermore, in this particular case I think you get a much better, more direct explanation of Google’s behavior vis-a-vis its acquisition of Motorola via intellectual property and patent litigation than via market power, let alone via “capital as power”.

Post reply on HN