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

Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 265 posts

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#161

Post by psbp »

IBM wrote: post #150
rst wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Google's official announcement[1], undersigned by Larry Page: "Google will retain the vast majority of Motorola’s patents, which we will continue to use to defend the entire Android ecosystem. " [1] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-mot...

Most of the patents have been pretty worthless so far. They are mostly standards essential patents that need to be licensed on FRAND terms and in the last 3 years they've had zero enforceable injunctions in their favor. Relevant: https://twitter.com/reckless/status/428653694998298624

We don't know what patents google is retaining, so it's unclear whether they're FRAND or truly valuable.

Also, I've followed Nilay's post on several of these patent issues; he's either wrong or he sensationalizes to fit his narrative. I don't think he's very credible, even with a J.D.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#162

Post by IBM »

psbp wrote: post #161
IBM wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the patents have been pretty worthless so far. They are mostly standards essential patents that need to be licensed on FRAND terms and in the last 3 years they've had zero enforceable injunctions in their favor. Relevant: https://twitter.com/reckless/status/428653694998298624

We don't know what patents google is retaining, so it's unclear whether they're FRAND or truly valuable. Also, I've followed Nilay's post on several of these patent issues; he's either wrong or he sensationalizes to fit his narrative. I don't think he's very credible, even with a J.D.

We know the quality of the patents from what they've attempted to assert in courts in jurisdictions all over the world. They've not been successful anywhere.

Unless you want to make the leap that they've been holding back all their valuable IP from their patent assertions for some unknown reason, I think it's a pretty safe conclusion.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#163

Post by dragonwriter »

IBM wrote: post #150
rst wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From Google's official announcement[1], undersigned by Larry Page: "Google will retain the vast majority of Motorola’s patents, which we will continue to use to defend the entire Android ecosystem. " [1] http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-mot...

Most of the patents have been pretty worthless so far. They are mostly standards essential patents that need to be licensed on FRAND terms and in the last 3 years they've had zero enforceable injunctions in their favor. Relevant: https://twitter.com/reckless/status/428653694998298624

> Most of the patents have been pretty worthless so far. They are mostly standards essential patents that need to be licensed on FRAND terms

Standards-essential patents that have to be licensed on FRAND terms are "worthless" only in the sense that an ongoing income stream is worthless.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#164

Post by yabatopia »

zmmmmm wrote: post #128

It's hard not to draw connections between the various events of the last week or so: 1) Google/Samsung patent deal, 2) Google purchases Nest, 3) Google sells Motorola, 4) Samsung suddenly cools on Tizen. Theory: Google gets offered the opportunity to buy Nest. Either Larry or Sergey gets serious interested. They bought Motorola because they wanted a serious stake in the hardware market. They toss up which is better -…

I don't think Nest has much to do with it. As I see it: 1) Google and Samsung sign a sweet patent deal, 2)Samsung halts or slows down the development of replacements for Google apps and promises not to fork Android, 3)In return Google drops Motorola, a direct competitor to Samsung.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#165

Post by facepalm »

mediaman wrote: post #7

Huge announcement if true, and if this accounts for the entirety of the Motorola purchase that Google made. That means that in less than two years, Google shredded 85% of the $13bn paid for Motorola. At the time, the high price paid was excused for the patents, because the business itself did not generate nearly enough earnings to justify the price. Now, if it is true that the patents are part of the deal (the articl…

It says in paragraph 3: "Under this deal the search giant will keep the majority of Motorola's mobile patents, considered its prize assets."

This is the silliest HN thread I have ever seen. All the time it was considered proof that Google is evil that they compete with other makers of Android handsets. People who like Google said from the beginning that Google was forced to buy Google because of the patent wars getting out of hand. Now that claim has been validated.

I am really, really surprised by this HN thread. I've been on HN for 6 years and have never seen anything like it.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#167

Post by WildUtah »

dragonwriter wrote: post #163
IBM wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the patents have been pretty worthless so far. They are mostly standards essential patents that need to be licensed on FRAND terms and in the last 3 years they've had zero enforceable injunctions in their favor. Relevant: https://twitter.com/reckless/status/428653694998298624

> Most of the patents have been pretty worthless so far. They are mostly standards essential patents that need to be licensed on FRAND terms Standards-essential patents that have to be licensed on FRAND terms are "worthless" only in the sense that an ongoing income stream is worthless.

The income stream is tiny or nonexistent. Microsoft recently challenged Moto's demands and ended up paying a royalty for every XBox. The royalty is so small that Google will end up having lost money on the litigation. And reasonable reading of the patents involved show that the royalty was grossly inflated. One of the patents was literally a patent on a number.

The purpose of patents in the smartphone wars is to force your competitors to deliver second rate phones or collect billions in damages. That's what Microsoft and Apple are doing to Android manufacturers. If Google can't retaliate, the patents are worthless in this context.

FRAND patents will never block Microsoft and Apple from using common, obvious functionality on their phones. Therefore they're worthless.

Microsoft have ignored standards and instead patented obvious necessary functionality and user interface elements and mathematical operations. Since prior art and obviousness are a dead letter at the Patent Office and the courts, these are the patents that are useful and valuable.

Essential technology patents based on research and development are worthless. Bounce-to-refresh, search boxes that actually search, long filenames, and other trivial or long known elements that can be forced past exhausted patent examiners are worth everything.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#168

Post by michaelt »

palebluedot wrote: post #105

Google just confirmed it, and explained some of their reasoning: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/lenovo-to-acquire-mot... I'm inexplicably bummed about this. I was excited to see what Google would do long term with Motorola, and I thought the Moto X and Moto G was a great start. I thought eventually, a Google+Motorola powerhouse could provide a nice yin to Apple's yang.

  I'm inexplicably bummed about this.
Perhaps because in the PC industry, where vendors like Dell install crapware like McAfee trials, we've been trained to prefer our software without 'improvements' from intermediaries.

Re: Lenovo to buy Google's Motorola handset division

#169

Post by smith7018 »

pbreit wrote: post #99
yetfeo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the advantages of Chromecast over something like Apple TV?

Much cheaper, doesn't need to plug into wall, more and more open viewing options. Question should probably be reversed (says this Apple fanatic).

I disagree. As someone who owns a Chromecast, I think you're doing a _huge_ disservice to the AppleTV. The Chromecast isn't a standalone device. Period. Full stop. It's basically a mildly improved AirPlay device that still lacks many features (even in the way of AirPlay). Off the top of my head:

1. The streaming isn't system wide. Developers need to incorporate the streaming ability into their apps whereas Apple has it builtin to the device. 2. My parents are unable to understand the concept of "flinging" content; they want it to be a DVR-like device. The AppleTV allows them to rent, purchase, or view previously obtained iTunes content. 3. Music sounds terrible through it. It lacks an optical audio out port so it just uses the TVs speakers which are obviously not great. 4. This is probably a personal issue, but Chrome tab streaming constantly drops out after a short period of time. I've yet to get it working fully. 5. AppleTV can support games being flung to the TV while using the iDevice as a controller. This isn't a selling point, but I'd like my N5 to do the same. 6. My TV (while being a 40" 1080p flat screen) is lacking a USB port so I do have to plug it in. 7. Am I missing where I can stream my Android device's OS on the screen? I know iOS allows you to stream the entire device's OS so you can give presentations and the like.

There are many, many things the Chromecast can't do. It's saving grace is its price point which lessens peoples' expectations but I wouldn't start saying the AppleTV should aspire to be it.

Post reply on HN