Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Aug 2011 12:04 UTC
Google Okay once again I'm breaking my own one-week time-off from OSNews due to, you know, taking a break and being too busy with other things, but this one is big - very big. Also, only the second time in OSNews history we've used the 'breaking'-tag. Google has just announced it is going to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion (more here). While providing Google with a dedicated mobile phone business, it also gives Google ownership of one of the most valuable mobile technology patent portfolios in existence. Update: Responses from the Android ecosystem are positive. HTC: "We welcome the news of today's acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem." Sony Ericsson & LG: "We welcome Google's commitment to defending Android and its partners."
Thread beginning with comment 485224
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

While I believe you are right on the surface, both Oracle and Google are OIN members. Yet Oracle is suing Google over an open source project. Not really sure how its suppose to work.


I said all of MMI's relevant patents. I should perhaps have been clearer and said instead "all of MIM's patents relevant to the pool".

In the case of the OIN pool, the pool is for Linux-related patents.

In the case of the WebM pool, the pool is for video codec patents.

A significant number of the MMI patents will be rleated to one or the other of these pools. All such patents will automatically be licensed to all of the members of the relevant pool.

For example, according to Oracle, the Java-related patents at issue are not specific to Linux, and therefore are not relevant to the OIN community pool. Since Java is cross-platform, Oracle are probably right here.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by galvanash on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

In that case I agree with you, but... My only caveat is you contention that a "significant" number of MMI patents would be relevant to Linux and WebM. I suspect there might be a few, but I doubt it would even be in the double digits. Most of MMI's patents are going to be on hardware inventions and communications processes... Just saying.

Now if Google were to create a community pool based on the MMI patents (like it did with On2's), that would probably go a long way to appease the naysayers. It would also make the Samsungs and HTCs of the world a lot more comfortably with the arrangement (I know they are publicly supportive, but it must make them at least a little nervous). I personally expect them to do exactly this once the dust settles.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 01:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

In that case I agree with you, but... My only caveat is you contention that a "significant" number of MMI patents would be relevant to Linux and WebM. I suspect there might be a few, but I doubt it would even be in the double digits. Most of MMI's patents are going to be on hardware inventions and communications processes... Just saying. Now if Google were to create a community pool based on the MMI patents (like it did with On2's), that would probably go a long way to appease the naysayers. It would also make the Samsungs and HTCs of the world a lot more comfortably with the arrangement (I know they are publicly supportive, but it must make them at least a little nervous). I personally expect them to do exactly this once the dust settles.


Agreed. It makes perfect sense for Google to do this, and then for any manufacturer interested in making Android mobile devices to then join this new community patent pool.

Microsoft can then kiss goodbye to the extortion payments they are trying to extract from makers of Android devices, IMO.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Aug 2011 03:15 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

For example, according to Oracle, the Java-related patents at issue are not specific to Linux, and therefore are not relevant to the OIN community pool. Since Java is cross-platform, Oracle are probably right here.


Having said that, apparently if they do buy MMI one of the things Google will be buying is a JavaME license.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by El_Exigente on Sat 20th Aug 2011 07:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
El_Exigente Member since:
2007-01-08

It is a very safe assumption that the MMI Java license is strictly limited in scope, rights, transferability, etc. Because it is doubtful that Sun's lawyers were completely incompetent, and it would unfair to judge their lawyers' competence by assuming it is on a par with Jonathan Schwartz' competence (or lack thereof.)

Reply Parent Score: 1