The news I got is “Judge narrows Google patent suit against
Microsoft”. It mentions a lawsuit
between Google’s Motorola Mobility against Microsoft Corp. The judge has
already found they three Motorola patents are invalid. Other parts of patents
are still active in the lawsuit.
I remember the professor mention Google bought Motorola
mainly for Motorola’s patents so that they can have something to sue or against
their competitor, such as Microsoft and Apple. After reading the article, I
wonder if it’s really worth Google to buy Motorola since some of the cover
video technologies have been claimed as “indefinite” by judge. I will follow
the news to see if Motorola’s patens are weaker bargaining chips for Google to
negotiate licensing deals with rivals as mentioned in the news.
In case someone interests about the patent lawsuit as I did,
here is the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/u-judge-narrows-google-patent-suit-against-microsoft-210520893--finance.html
I also think it's interesting that Google strives to develop its technologies in-house most of the time, whereas Microsoft doesn't focus on that as much and instead waits for a smaller guy to do the inventing, patenting, and rest of the work. Then Microsoft swoops in and acquires the smaller guy. It's really interesting, because in that case the smaller guy does all of the work and Microsoft can just use its cash to buy it out!
ReplyDeleteI think that even if Google's newly acquired patents are in fact week in court, it just serves as a bargaining chips for them. Even a weak case is still a case; Google has the resources to essentially tie up its competitors in lawsuits.
ReplyDelete