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

11–20 of 65 posts

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

#11

Post by gowld »

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…

What's the difference between keeping competitors our and keeping yourself in? Some goods are unique or scarce and go to the highest bidder.

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

#12

Post by AlbertCory »

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.

Perhaps, but this is the second article by Doctorow this week.

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

#13

Post by huitzitziltzin »

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 occasionally involved in patent litigation, frequently with patent trolls (though sometimes with large competitors too). This is familiar enough to everyone on this site. For Google this was a defensive acquisition, but a defense against frivolous litigation. There is no need to invent some theory of firm “power seeking” to make the case.

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

#14

Post by AlbertCory »

orangeoxidation wrote: post #6
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…

> 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.

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

#15

Post by Ar-Curunir »

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…

Maybe ask economists if there's a 'credible economic theory of firm “power seeking”'?

https://capitalaspower.com/

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

#16

Post by dmoy »

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…

It's like reading Paul Krugman talking about stuff other than economics. Freaking genius economist with amazing papers and articles (my personal favorite is his joke-but-actually-realistic paper on intergalactic trade). But then he strays into territory where he isn't actually an expert, connects a few dots, and then publishes in his NYT column despite it being mostly rubbish.

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

#17

Post by ece »

gowld wrote: post #11
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…

What's the difference between keeping competitors our and keeping yourself in? Some goods are unique or scarce and go to the highest bidder.

Those aren't the type of goods these companies are making. All of these companies have durable market power (in search, networking/communication, marketplaces); and can and have used it to expand their own power like the article says, and do it at the expense of smaller competitors. Hence the new anti-rust view being one that stops such anti-competitive actions.

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

#18

Post by AlbertCory »

cma wrote: post #8
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…

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…

You and gota both need to read the literature on patent strategy in maturing markets. This is well-known and informed everyone's strategy in the 2010 era, Google's and Microsoft's.

The literature says that in mature markets, the major players all have cross-licensing agreements sharing their giant patent portfolios, shutting out the minor players. They form an oligarchy, in other words.

I may be a few years behind, having been retired for a few years, but I don't think this has actually happened. It's possible that Google and Apple and Microsoft really do have cross-licenses now, but I kinda doubt it. It would be too complicated to negotiate. What they have is mutually assured destruction.

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

#20

Post by AnthonyMouse »

gota wrote: post #4
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…

> 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?

The theory goes like this. The Patent Office keeps granting overly broad patents to your competitors, who then show up to sue you for unintentionally violating them. So you get your own overly broad patents, counter-sue them when this happens, and then they all cancel out.

The main problem with this strategy is patent trolls. Some company that doesn't make anything buys up some broad patents. Then there is nothing you can sue them over because they don't make anything so the strategy doesn't work.

It also makes the whole concept of software patents pretty useless, because the "defensive patents" could equally be used to counter anyone who tries to sue you for violating a "legitimate" patent. So the whole system becomes a bludgeon for larger companies to use against smaller companies, because they have more patents, even if most of them are low quality, which means they can tie up anyone who actually makes anything in court indefinitely.

Post reply on HN