Google has clarified why it didn't enter into a joint patent deal with Microsoft, claiming that it 'didn't fall for' a patent trap that Microsoft had created for it.
David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer for Google updated an earlier blog post to add some detail. In this update Drummond says that Microsoft is trying to 'divert attention' from the bigger issue with the assertion that Microsoft had asked Google if it wanted to enter a joint big for the Novell patent acquisition deal.
So why did Google turn down the offer? According to Drummond 'if you think about it, it's obvious why [Google] turned down Microsoft's offer' ...
'Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android - and having us pay for the privilege - must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.'
I must admit that I've lost the point that Google is trying to make here. To me it's coming across like 'patents are bad when they're used against us, except when they're our patents and we can use them to defend our IP.'
What do you think? Are you a Google supporter, or a Microsoft supporter?