Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st May 2012 23:47 UTC
Legal "He's one of 10 reverse-engineers working full time for a stealthy company funded by some of the biggest names in technology: Apple, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony, and Ericsson. Called the Rockstar Consortium, the 32-person outfit has a single-minded mission: It examines successful products, like routers and smartphones, and it tries to find proof that these products infringe on a portfolio of over 4,000 technology patents once owned by one of the world's largest telecommunications companies. When a Rockstar engineer uncovers evidence of infringement, the company documents it, contacts the manufacturer, and demands licensing fees for the patents in question. The demand is backed by the implicit threat of a patent lawsuit in federal court." And then people wonder why I call Apple and Microsoft patent trolls. These are the people destroying this industry, with Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. money. Sickeningly low.
Thread beginning with comment 519090
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: How stupid were Google
by cyrilleberger on Wed 23rd May 2012 06:28 UTC in reply to "How stupid were Google"
cyrilleberger
Member since:
2006-02-01

First they utterly fuck up the bidding process through the absurd and juvenile prank of using math constants to set their bidding offers. Are these people children? And then, when it is clear that a big consortium of the big tech players is coming together in a consortium that is almost certain to win, Google rejects an invitation to join the consortium!

In what universe did that strategic decision make sense?


From this it seems you see two reasons for google stupidity:
1) bidding with mathematical constants
2) they did not join the winning consortium

For 1), it makes me wonder if you ever bid on something of significant value (like a house, unlike some ebay thing). Since it was an English style auction (ie bidding until everyone folds and the highest bidder get the prize), the main principle is that you set a maximum price you are willing to pay (for Google it was around 4 billions $), and you bid random numbers until you win or your ceiling is reached. Whether it is 3B$ or 3.14B$ does not makes any difference, except that it was a good opportunity for google to make some buzz, at no cost.

As for 2), Google's motto is "Don't (openly) do evil", sure they do pretty crazy stuff (ie log wifi data, violate privacy settings...) but it *never* appears to come from the company management. From the very beginning it appeared that the consortium was all about trolling other companies to get money out of the patents portfolio, quiet obviously, Google considered it to be evil, and did not want to be associated with it. Whether it is a good decision or not remains to be seen.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: How stupid were Google
by Tony Swash on Wed 23rd May 2012 11:52 in reply to "RE: How stupid were Google"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

"First they utterly fuck up the bidding process through the absurd and juvenile prank of using math constants to set their bidding offers. Are these people children? And then, when it is clear that a big consortium of the big tech players is coming together in a consortium that is almost certain to win, Google rejects an invitation to join the consortium!

In what universe did that strategic decision make sense?


From this it seems you see two reasons for google stupidity:
1) bidding with mathematical constants
2) they did not join the winning consortium

For 1), it makes me wonder if you ever bid on something of significant value (like a house, unlike some ebay thing). Since it was an English style auction (ie bidding until everyone folds and the highest bidder get the prize), the main principle is that you set a maximum price you are willing to pay (for Google it was around 4 billions $), and you bid random numbers until you win or your ceiling is reached. Whether it is 3B$ or 3.14B$ does not makes any difference, except that it was a good opportunity for google to make some buzz, at no cost.

As for 2), Google's motto is "Don't (openly) do evil", sure they do pretty crazy stuff (ie log wifi data, violate privacy settings...) but it *never* appears to come from the company management. From the very beginning it appeared that the consortium was all about trolling other companies to get money out of the patents portfolio, quiet obviously, Google considered it to be evil, and did not want to be associated with it. Whether it is a good decision or not remains to be seen.
"


I admire your confidence in Google's ethics. Mostly in this particular fiasco (like the much larger Android fiasco) I just see a not very well run company saturated with a pervasive and naive sense of entitlement stumbling into ill condsidered adventures. Nothing you say contradicts my point, for a very large tech company Google acted with breathtaking nonchalance and stupidity. They deserve everything they get.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: How stupid were Google
by kwan_e on Wed 23rd May 2012 12:22 in reply to "RE[2]: How stupid were Google"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I just see a not very well run company saturated with a pervasive and naive sense of entitlement stumbling into ill condsidered adventures. Nothing you say contradicts my point, for a very large tech company Google acted with breathtaking nonchalance and stupidity. They deserve everything they get.


On the other hand, if it was Apple in Google's position, you would be praising them for having some devious secret plan and played to lose in their infinite wisdom.

You think of your conclusion first, then you pick the point of view that suits your conclusion. Face it. You're a hack.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Right. A company that took a decade to become one of the biggest companies in the world, one of the most loved, trusted, and respected the world over, with more users than probably any other technology company out there, is "not well run". And sure, the most successful mobile operating system of all time - by a long shot - is a "fiasco".

Once, you were just an Apple enthusiast. These days, you're bordering on total nuttiness. You must be following Gruber pretty closely.

Edited 2012-05-23 12:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

cyrilleberger Member since:
2006-02-01

I admire your confidence in Google's ethics.


For the record, I have no confidence in Google's ethics, and the only information I give them is my search queries. And I do not believe that part of the management was not involved in one way or an other in Google's misbehaviour. However, it is clear that the leader of the company make their best to publicly appear clean, and that is why they would never associate themselves openly to a patent troll.

(And I agree with Thom, you might dislike Android, you might think it is a rip-off of iOS, but calling the most used smartphone OS a fiasco is very very far fetched, by that standard, I have no idea what the word success would mean).

Reply Parent Score: 2