Note that Apple havent sued Google, but only Android phone makers. If Google cross licenses MMI patents, that doesnt necessarily all Android licensees are protected. Of course they can make the licensing terms such that other companies are also covered, but then the price might be almost the same.
If this is ALL about the patents, then why didn't Google do what they did with IBM and merely buy or cross-license the patents? Certainly the market didn't value the patents as highly as Google must have if this was merely about the patents.
Yes, Moto has 3x number of patents compared to Nortel so that patent portfolio is very important. But if this is just about patents should expect a layoff of several thousands of Moto employees, obviously not...getting into the phone business for Google just doesn't feel right, culture clash within Google/Moto combo, competing with Android customers like Samsung, managing complicated hardware supply chains, not pleasant at all...how about keeping the patents and selling the Moto back to whoever wants to manufacture Android phones? I bet within a year we will see just that, mark my words ;-)...Kris
Just proves again that parents are evil and stifle rather than foster innovation. If all of these companies spent their money on engineers and development instead of patents and lawyers there would be a lot more VALUABLE people employed and a lot more innovation would be happening. Linux made it from a students desk to something better than virtually all alternatives in such a short time because there were no patents stifling it. Android leapt from that base to 48% market share in only a couple of years. I reckon the antitrust people should look at the Apple/Windows duopoly before ruling against Google's necessary move based on this stupid patent situation.
I hope Google values what I think is Motorola Mobility's most valuable asset, their staff of employees with specialized knowledge and long experience building the radio part of cell phones. I've always used Motorola phones, and in places where my wife's (competitor) phone couldn't connect mine would. Now she has a Motorola phone too. That's important, I hope Google will preserve what they invested in.
This move felt like a IP patent blocking exercise to protect Google from the Novel and Nortel new patent holders. I wonder if there are future plans to expand into the mobile market with a next generation device that is Google centric in terms of on-line web access but focused on the mobile market?
The Motorola patents are certainly a rich prize, but I'm not sure it's all about the patents.
It's interesting to hear people ask why Google would want to be in the hardware business, like that's a dumb idea, and yet it makes perfect sense that Apple is in the hardware business.
This acquisition makes Google look much more like Apple on many levels, and puts the two companies on more of a direct collision course, as others have already noted.
Where is this business (or any other business) end, when this amount of effort and money is spend on patent wars over some some really ridiculous patents.
Being IP lawyer in these days is much more profitable than being engineer. Innovation isn't value anymore.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.