Did you link the right article - the referenced article references a court case between Motorola and Microsoft - one that started before Google's acquisition of Moto.
It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue).
People may like to portray Microsoft's use of patents as "abuse", but the fact stands that they have successfully licensed their portfolio to most Android manufacturers with a minimum of lawsuits and, more importantly, without being legally penalized like Google/Motorola were.
Well I'm not sure how the article backs up your statement. It was Microsoft who started the patent litigation against Motorola, and it was Motorola who decided to not pay Microsoft. Google was only tangentially involved due to its acquisition which happened after the litigation started, so I'm unsure how Google is getting a free pass - Google really didn't do anything (as far as the scope of the article goes).
Mea culpa, my memory is bad, so let's lay out the timeline:
Early Oct 2010: Microsoft files lawsuit.
Late Oct 2010: Motorola countersues.
Aug 2011: Google announces Motorola acquisition. (Many would say Google's watch starts now.)
May 2012: Google closes Motorola acquisition.
Sept 2013: Microsoft wins 14M judgement with jury deciding unanimously that Google was a bad actor.
Regardless of where you start the stopwatch, Google had at least a full 16 months to prevent this outcome. And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy.
>And note again, Google was the only company involved in the smartphone wars to suffer this fate. Given its previous rhetoric about "patent abuse", this is nothing but hypocrisy.
Prevent what outcome. You aren't being clear on how Google abused patents. What patents did specifically Google abuse? If my reading comprehension serves me right, Google didn't sue anyone over the use of any patents - Motorola and Microsoft did. The litigation you listed says Motorola refused to pay a licensing fee, and Microsoft sued - all without the help of Google.
If your argument is that after the the acquisition, Google should have went behind the backs of Moto's lawyers who had been working 8 months on this case and done something - then I assume you are just grasping at straws to create some "hypocrisy" story.
"The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has upheld (PDF) a 2013 jury verdict finding that Motorola must pay Microsoft $14.5 million for violating its commitments to license certain standard-essential patents on a "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) basis."
>Motorola and Microsoft did.
As the timeline I posted shows, Google owned Motorola for a significant portion of the duration of the lawsuit, most importantly the part where they got penalized.
> If your argument is that after the the acquisition, Google should have went behind the backs of Moto's lawyers who had been working 8 months on this case and done something...
Uh, yes? If you're putting out a bunch of PR about how other companies are using patents to "attack" Android, you should not end up the only company penalized for actually abusing patents. You can't say, "Oh, it's a company we fully own, but we can't really control their lawyers and waste their efforts." You know who else plays the "shell company" game, right?
1.) FTA, Google didn't abuse any patents - Microsoft used its patents to attack Android. Sure Google lost, but your claim that Google abused patents isn't backed up here, Microsoft was the aggressor and Google lost. Google has every right to believe that other companies are using patents to attack Android - thats exactly what MS did here. Show me a case where Google actively sought out to use their patents to sue someone else and then you have a point.
FWIW, the case in question isn't new, everyone else decided to play ball and pay MS 1% of all revenue except Motorola, which leads to...
2.) The litigation covers a period of time independent of Google. Are you seriously implying Google is the bad actor here when the litigation is over something that happened BEFORE Google acquired moto? Or are you trying to imply every Android manufacturer (Samsung, LG, HTC) are all just shell companies for Google (even though all the other "shell" companies decided to play ball with MS)?
3.) >you should not end up the only company penalized for actually abusing patents.
I guess we are just going to close our eyes and ears over Apple's 1B injunction against samsung over rounded corners?
It seems the patent battle was Microsoft abuse of its own patents to take a percentage of all Android sales (and Moto's revenue).
Edit: Motorola vs Microsoft, not Google