Microsoft responds to Google ... again

Microsoft responds to Google ... again

Summary: Google and Microsoft continue to duke it out in public over patents.

TOPICS: Google, Microsoft

Isn't it great when two multi-billion dollar corporations duke it out in public? This is what's currently going on between Microsoft and Google, via blog posts and Twitter.

The duel began when Google's  SVP and Chief Legal Officer, David Drummond launched an attack on Android rivals, claiming that they are using ‘bogus patents‘ to stifle the mobile OS.

It didn't take long for Microsoft to respond to Google accusations. First up was Brad Smith, Microsoft General Counsel, who revealed via Twitter that Microsoft had asked Google if the company wanted to enter into a joint bid for Novell patents (the patents that Drummond was referring to initially) and Google had said declined the offer.

The Frank Shaw, Microsoft Head of Communications entered into the fray, posting an email from Google to Microsoft proving that Google had turned down the offer to make a joint bid for the patents.

Case closed ... or was it?

Drummond then posted an update to his original blog post claiming that Microsoft's offer was a trap intended to prevent Google from using those patents to defend itself against litigation. 'We didn't fall for it' claims Drummond.

Confused? Well, it gets better! Now Microsoft's Shaw reenters the bun fight once again, this time with four tweets aimed at Drummond:

It's quite clear that by going public both Microsoft and Google are hoping to win hearts and minds of supporters (and perhaps stir up the fanboys). However, it does seem that Microsoft is trying to do the right thing here (reducing patent liability) while Google wants to accumulate patents in order to wield them against others.

Topics: Google, Microsoft

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

    only an idiot would partner with Microsoft. Everyone that does gets eating. Sega to name one. Microsoft use it friendship to shoot them in their back and make Xbox. There are other also.
    • Google Does Not Stifle Innovation Litigiously

      Google has sued

      Auction Experts International for click-fraud in 2004 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 "" 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: Microsoft responds to Google ... again


        They don't need to sue to stiffle innovation. They just simply steal it. ;)
        The one and only, Cylon Centurion
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        @Cylon Centurion Okay Cylon Centurion, show us what they stole and before you mention Java, go read Groklaw, turns out Oracle isn't being very honest.

        Now show us what judgement has been adjudicated against Google showing they stole anything! If you have no judgements then you have no crime!
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        @Peter Perry "show us what they stole"

        He shouldn't have to show you what they stole. It's common knowledge that Android violates numerous patents held by Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle. It's also obvious from internal memos between Google execs that they knew they were violating patents when creating Android, and instead of signing a licensing agreement, they forged ahead, willingly and knowingly with patent violations.
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again


        Who is Google suing for patent infringement?
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again


        Isn't it suspected that WebM contains lifted code? I could have swore I read that somewhere as well.
        The one and only, Cylon Centurion
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        Cylon Centurion "Isn't it suspected that WebM contains lifted code? I could have swore I read that somewhere as well."

        That is not a proven fact, just MPEG-LA trash talking VP8 since it's a competitor to H264.
      • bad guys

        @Cylon Centurion "They just simply steal it."
        I can play that tabloid style game also. In an imaginary world using someones IP is serious. (Not in the real software world for many reasons.) Doing that knowingly is worse. But what is really outrages and near to criminal is making claims about IP that is not yours. Asking other people to pay you money for something you did not invent. Because there is prior art. In the mean time declaring you are just protecting your IP. Hypocrisy beyond imagination.
        What is more, it are those who are attacked with the false claims who have to pay for proving your claim is false. A little joke of the lawmakers.
        Look how many of the claims of Oracle against Google are now found invalid. Look what will be happening with many of the claims of their friends, Microsoft, Apple, Rim...
        So who are the worst bad guys?
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again


        I'm still amazed at the number of people who can't see the irony of an advertising company saying do no evil ;-)
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        If you are trying to imply advertising is evil, it would make a lot of sense. I mean most of your posts make you sound like an idiot so why not this one. By the way, Microsoft's bing division is very much an advertising division.
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        @Kangaruhs All I have to say is that Android would still look like Blackberry if it wasn't for iPhone. #spiesintheboardroom
    • Message has been deleted.

    • Message has been deleted.

    • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

      I don't how I missed this very firs reply, but made me laugh out totally. Sega's death is not at all related to XBOX. Dreamcast was already dying, no matter of XBox coming in. Also it took more than 5 years for Microsoft becoming profitable in XBox Division. Please read the original sources not 3rd party biased information before saying something in public next time.
      Ram U
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        @Rama.NET To further your point, what killed the Dreamcast was Electronic Arts. Dreamcast was full of amazing ideas for their time (online gameplay, screens in the controller) and had some of the best graphics of that generation, the fact that sports video game players couldn't get Madden on the system killed many potential sales.<br><br>Don't get me wrong - I liked Sega's NFL games far more than I ever liked Madden, so much so that I had a Genesis as a kid for that reason alone. It's just that the majority of the market wanted Madden and not any of the other NFL games.
      • RE: Microsoft responds to Google ... again

        regardless of whether or not you ever read this, the poster said MS killed sega, because MS and Sega signed a contract to work together to develop the next gen gaming system after the Dreamcast, after some 2 years of research and co-design, Microsoft pulled out of the agreement and used a significant portion of the combined research to produce the Xbox, leaving Sega without any viable research to design anything other than what would be known as the Xbox clone. Because of this Sega shut down their hardware business.

        Do some research before making fun of someone else's posts.

        And to the original poster, if you are going to bring in such an off the wall topic to a conversation that has not had any comments in that direction, you need to back your stuff up to prevent people from making fun of your post.
    • SCO Mk 2

      Since the patents are not for their invention value but rather to play a legal blackmail game, any contract to 'joint bid' is just another legal game. SCO mk 2 it seems.

      I do not believe MS wants to 'reduce patent liability' since they're the ones making legal patent threats against Android handset makers.

      I do not accept Frank Shaw is a spokesman for Google (which is what you're doing here, taking an MS man's explanation for a Google action as though he's representing them). He isn't, misdirection is the norm from MS, so the truth is always likely to be different to the story told by MS.
      • good posting..

        <div style="display:none;"> <a href="" title="kelebek">kelebek</a> </div>
    • Anyone really interested in this subject...

      For more research, go read this interesting and deep analysis via this law website:
      (Note: I have nothing to do with this other site, I just found the article and comments insightful.)