As I mentioned in my previous post, it seems that Google has been out of luck recently in the patent courtrooms.
They have lost yet another case to Microsoft, concerning a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device". Of course, this refers to Microsoft's Xbox Kinect system, which Google believes infringes the patent. More information here:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-loses-another-one-to-microsoft.html
Even without going into detail about the patent, the ruling doesn't surprise me because Kinect is not a mobile or "portable" device. Additionally, although the ideas are similar, I'm willing to bet that the technologies are quite different.
This case is significant because like others before it, it displays that Google's acquisition of Motorola may have not been as great of a choice as they thought. The $12.5 billion acquisition gave them a large patent portfolio, but unfortunately Google simply hasn't been able to win many cases using those patents.
Additionally, other companies may realize that Google isn't as big of a threat as they thought. Microsoft, for example, hasn't been getting much press coverage in terms of patent litigation because its overwhelming strategy has been to license its patents out for a fee. However, Microsoft is definitely a very powerful player. Google's Android infringes on several of Microsoft's patents, and they were probably hoping that they could get away with this for free as part of a deal if they could prove that Microsoft is also infringing on their / Motorola's patents. However, as they continue to lose these cases, Microsoft will soon come after them for licensing royalties, and perhaps a lawsuit.
Interesting point. It seems as though the more strategic approach from a profit maximizing perspective is to try to avoid large litigation cases and simply license out products to other mobile tech companies.
ReplyDeleteI think we discussed in class how Google is not very strong when it comes to protecting itself, since it does not possess a lot of patents like Microsoft, Apple, and some other companies do (in other words, they can't fight back). Like you mentioned, that is probably why Google is not as big of a threat.
ReplyDeleteI wonder which strategy will prevail long term: Google's hands-off approach to distributing Android or Microsoft's careful control of its mobile phone efforts. It seems like Google's relative legal and patent inexperience, when compared to industry dinosaurs such as Microsoft/Nokia, is costing it in court.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like Motorola has definitely caught Google in the gutter. It will be interesting to see how Google utilizes or tries to justify Motorola purchase to its benefit.
ReplyDeleteThat's true. And in courts recently, many of their patents from the past have been deemed ineffective and nullified because of ambiguity in their claims. I actually like Microsoft's patent strategy as well.
ReplyDeleteYea this seems to be mostly true, but I'm sure that they must have had their reasons for doing do. Microsoft seems to have a pretty good grasp on their strategy though.
ReplyDeleteI wrote about this case as well, but I great take by thinking about the Motorola acquisition. I didn't even think about that aspect, and it is certainly a valid thought that maybe it was a mistake to purchase them.
ReplyDeleteI would even hold off on making that statement. We are yet to see whether the Motorola acquisition was a bust in my opinion.
ReplyDelete