Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
Summary: According to David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer for Google, 'if you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft's offer'.
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?
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
?Hello again David Drummond. This is going to take a few tweets, so here we go. Let?s look at what Google does not dispute in their reply.
We offered Google the opportunity to bid with us to buy the Novell patents; they said no.
Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.
SO partnering with others & reducing patent liability across industry is not something they wanted to help do?
Google Translate converts "that grape is sour" into "we skipped the trap"
Time for the sissies over at google to take their dresses off and put
Google Doesn't Stifle Competition Litigiously
Auction Experts International for click-fraud in 2004
Froogles.com for trademark infringement in 2005
Microsoft for setting the default in IE7 to MSN Search in 2006
Leo Stoller for falsely claiming trademark rights for the purpose of harassing and attempting to extort money out of legitimate commercial actors, both large and small in 2007
Polish poets for using the domain "gmailpl" in 2007
Scammers and spammers for scams and spam in 2009
Erich Specht over the use of the "Android" Trademark in 2009
The US department of the interior for not considering Google apps in 2010
Rogue pharmacies for illegal drug ads in 2010
I am shocked at how little Google has sued. I'm also shocked that they have never sued to stifle innovation or competition.
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
Now why didn't they invite Google into the Nortel Patent bid? That requires a deeper look.
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
<i><b>"Now why didn't they invite Google into the Nortel Patent bid"</b></i> ... Microsoft <b>DID</b> invite Google to join the Nortel patent bid, but Google said no. That's the whole point of the post you're commenting to.
By NOT joining the bid, Google have now handed Microsoft et al. 1000 more patents to beat them over the head with. Nice move Google. Best break out the checkbook - I think you may be needing it soon.
Invite
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
IT makes sense
It makes NO sense
If they wanted litigation protection, then being part of the consortium would have given them that. They can't be sued for shared patents.
Nooooo, they wanted amunition to fire back at EVERYONE ELSE! Google is trying to play a very bad game of "Nanny-Nanny, Boo-Boo".
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
I can't believe that Google would take a stance like that. I can't think of a single "for profit" company that would willingly trade thousands of patents for free. If you truly believe Google would do this, then Google should give away their search algorithms for IP to be named at a later date. Even Google isn't that stupid.
It makes sense.
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
Poorly worded response
I know they don't have the patents, I was actually referring to Microsoft and Apple defending their IP. I guess I need to go back and re-word my response.
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
The patents in a Microsoft/Apple consorium do nothing to solve the problem of Microsoft and Apple trying to sue Android out of existence since they cannot win through free competition. That's why the patents are only valuable with a Linux/Android consortium because patent battles are like nuclear negotiations, you have to have enough nukes to stop the other side through MAD.
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
RE: Google: We 'didn't fall for' Microsoft's patent trap
You weren't part of any Ponzi Scheme's lately were you?
Peter Perry, it matter little how much they paid for the patents
I do notice that many people place items for sale onto eBay, in the hopes that someone will bid higher then what the seller believes the items are worth.
If that was not the case, then a seller could go to Craig's List and just advertise the item for a price he is willing to part with it for.
Whay should it be different with patents? The group appears to believe the patents are worth what they paid, otherwise they would not have made that offer.