Google Chief Legal Officer accuses Microsoft of lying on patent bid dispute

“Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond updated his criticism of the Nortel and Novell patent bid to rebuff Microsoft’s claims that it had thrown out a chance at patents by turning down an invitation to the Novell bid,” Electronista reports.

“He accused Microsoft of diversionary tactics and said that the offer to join on Novell was an effective trap,” Electronista reports. “If Google had joined the group, it couldn’t use those patents to defend itself or others from anti-Android lawsuits, the very goal Microsoft wanted to achieve by bidding in the first place. ‘A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners,’ Drummond wrote. ‘Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn’t fall for it.'”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Note: Drummond’s statement reads, verbatim:

It’s not surprising that Microsoft would want to divert attention by pushing a false “gotcha!” while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised. If you think about it, it’s obvious why we turned down Microsoft’s offer. Microsoft’s objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android — and having us pay for the privilege — must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn’t fall for it.

Ultimately, the U.S. Department of Justice intervened, forcing Microsoft to sell the patents it bought and demanding that the winning group (Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, EMC) give a license to the open-source community, changes the DoJ said were “necessary to protect competition and innovation in the open source software community.” This only reaffirms our point: Our competitors are waging a patent war on Android and working together to keep us from getting patents that would help balance the scales. – David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer

 

Related articles:
Why Google lashed out at Apple and Microsoft over patents: Android is in deep trouble and its top lawyer knows it – August 4, 2011
Microsoft: Google turned down chance to join in Novell patent bid – August 4, 2011
Google legal honcho: Apple, Oracle, Microsoft use ‘bogus patents’ to wage hostile campaign against sainted Android – August 3, 2011

45 Comments

    1. Google’s inverted logic. Bad=good. Evil=good. Theft=good.

      I’ve got no time for that sucker’s idiocy. The DOJ gave prior approval for the Nortel bid. It’s unlikely to force the winning bidders to open up the patent pool to licensing. Google will just have to take it up the ass this time. Stupid mother#%^*ers.

  1. Talk about trying to play damage cleanup, Google screwed up and it is aware of the lose it will have soon.

    All of this is part of playing the media to show Google is being hurt, the problem is all the evidence against Google shows the intent they have to wage a lost war by using the media and with the hope of users backing them.

    It all doesn’t add up, Drummound just keeps digging the whole deeper, They Lost the NORTEL Bid, now they are trying to get the DOJ to do the dirty work for them by complaining.

    The outrage is against Google not towards Microsoft,Apple or EMC.

    TALK ABOUT MEDIA SPIN.

  2. This guy still doesn’t get it, “Pay for what you stole”. Using so called bogus patents to avoid a licensing responsibility puts you well below those you claim are using bogus patents to protect their IP or as you claim stifle innovation. If it was truly innovation you would not need a bunch of bogus patents to protect it (Android) because it would have been issued patents on it’s own merits. Innovation does not mean copying, using someone’s patented idea before they do is also not considered innovation.

  3. So Microsoft is supposed to feel bad about taking away Google’s ability to counter sue once they drop the hammer. Where did this guy go to Lawyer school exactly?

  4. what the hell is a senior counsel (or any counsel) doing blogging publicly about his client’s business and their negotiating strategy?

    now he’s in a high-profile spat and feels compelled to argue it out in a public forum

    nice

  5. Fascinating the way Google – who by any reasonable definition has a monopoly position in search and ads on the internet – is trying to portray this like they’re some poor tiny David against a huge evil Goliath.

    And his definition of “balance the scales” is hilarious, considering the way that Google abuses their monopoly cash to dump free products into existing markets, to destroy or disrupt existing businesses. Google’s asking for a free pass so they can further unbalance the scales in their own favor!

    1. No. You’re actually very bright. Because you can see Bozo the “petulant 13-year-old” clown for what he is. 🙂

      Wow! If you are going to spin something in business, it had better hold together better and be less transparent than this bunch of hypocritical bull.

  6. Once again, great MDN take. Because you can’t top the original foot-in-mouth, can’t write this comedy of errors up. He’s even their legal head honcho of sort.

    I understand what Google’s Chief Legal Officer is trying to backtrack to: they can’t enter into any co-ownership of any patents because then Google can’t threaten these same folks with these patents. Why purchase ‘bogus’ patents if you can’t bogus litigate someone into cross-licensing their hard earned IPs away? Bogus right?

    However, obviously, this whole notion of purchasing patents to strong-arm competitors is something uniquely Google’s right for the simplest of reasons, they’re the champion of openness and transparency. Anybody else says otherwise, and/or does what Google had attempted to do here by outbidding, are bunch of bullies, and should immediately be dealt with lobbyist funded government regulatory bodies instead.

  7. Sorry, but this guy just can not stop with the nonsense. There is no way to spin the fact he claimed that the Evil consortium wanted to push aside poor Google from buying the patents and, at the same time, the fact that Google was asked to join and refused,

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.