Print 97 comment(s) - last by GrammarPolice.. on Jul 25 at 3:14 PM

Microsoft and Apple appear to be trying to bully the Android ecosystem out of the market with lawsuits and licensing demands.

Companies have transformed patents from a way to a protect innovations, into a currency used to bully competitors out of the market.  (Source: Google Images)

Without intervention, Android's top phonemakers may find themselves forced into a financially untenable position.  (Source: Digitals Life)
U.S. antitrust regulators fear "Rockstar" coalition could litigate Android phonemakers to death

The smartphone war continues to rage on and Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android has stepped out into the lead.  It outsold Apple, Inc. (AAPL) smartphones over 2 to 1 globally in the last quarter.  And minority players like Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) were struggling to cling on to insubstantial market shares.

I. Google: Market Champion or Buying Time?

Android's race to the top was fueled by its support of an open ecosystem in which players like Motorola Solutions Inc. (MSI), Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO:005930), and HTC Corp. (TPE:2498) could all make Android devices without direct licensing fees (Google profited off of app sales and mobile advertising).  

The result was an ecosystem which frequently delivered hardware that was more advanced than Apple, Research in Motion, Ltd. (TSE:RIM), and Microsoft's offerings.  And not only was the hardware better, the selection was broader too.

But despite the appearance that Android won, the ecosystem is now facing the looming potential of doom.  That doom could come thanks to Apple, RIM, and Microsoft's growing portfolio of purchased intellectual property and desire to sue Android handset makers into submission.

Apple currently is suing HTC, Samsung, and Motorola in cases that stretch across multiple countries and continents [1][2][3][4].  Microsoft is suing Motorola as well and is using legal threats to try to force Samsung into a per phone licensing deal (as much as $15 USD per Android phone sold), as it did with HTC last year.  Likewise, Oracle Corp. (
ORCL) is seeking $6.1B USD in damages, claiming that Android is infringing on the Java patents it obtained in its acquisition of Sun Microsystems.

The combined picture is clear.  Apple and Microsoft have sued or entered into sweet licensing agreements with virtually every major Android maker (a few like 
LG Electronics Inc. (SEO:066570) have been spared, presumably on the merits of their smaller market share).

II. Android Faces Death by Multiple Means

The question becomes whether Android handset makers can remain viable in the face of these lawsuits.  While a $15 USD licensing fee to Microsoft might not be lethal, if Samsung and HTC have to pay an additional $15 USD to Apple and $15 USD to Oracle, the result may be the phones will become unprofitable.

On the other hand, if Google's handset partners refuse to play ball, they may be forced to pay even worse damages by international courts.

Apple, Microsoft, and others have multiple routes to use their intellectual property to kill Android.

III. Shadowy Alliance Beats Google for IP Treasure Chest

Those efforts have been strengthened by the purchase of Nortel Networks' portfolio of over 6,000 patents.  The telecom equipment maker put the portfolio on the market after it was forced to declare bankruptcy in 2009.

Google hoped to win the portfolio, bidding $900M USD.  It insisted that its purposes for acquiring it would be peaceful.  In its blog its Senior Vice President and General Counsel Kent Walker explains, "[O]ne of a company’s best defenses against .
.. [patent] litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services."

The comment would prove fortuitous, as Google was beat by a shadowy bidder calling itself "Rockstar Bidco".  That bidder offered up $4.5B USD, an offer that was embraced by a cash-thirsty Nortel, leave Google's potential offer in the dust.

So who was Rockstar Bidco?  Turns out it was none other than Apple, Microsoft, RIM, and three other companies -- the same players who are working to use their already substantial IP to try to sue or license Android handset makers into the red.

IV. U.S. Antitrust Regulators May Step In

The plot to kill Android is so obvious that it has top antitrust experts screaming foul.  Robert Skitol, an antitrust lawyer at the Drinker Biddle firm, opines in a Washington Post interview, "Why is the portfolio worth five times more to this group collectively than it is to Google? Why are three horizontal competitors being allowed to collaborate and cooperate and join hands together in this, rather than competing against each other?"

Brian Kahin, a senior fellow at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, adds, "The one thing that's significant here is you have three of the four smartphone platforms ganging up on the fourth. You want patents for an economic benefit, not as a legal instrument."

The questions Mr. Skitol and Mr. Kahin raises are reportedly being echoed among top U.S. antitrust officials.  Pressure is mounting for the U.S. government to block or place serious restrictions on the "Rockstar Bidco" acquisition of the Nortel IP.

The American Antitrust Institute sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, begging them to limit the purchase.

The sale is set to be made official on Nortel's antitrust proceedings today, though regulatory approval still awaits.

Mr. Walker says the outcome of the pending sale could be a matter of life or death for the Android ecosystem and free market.  He states, "This outcome is disappointing for anyone who believes that open innovation benefits users and promotes creativity and competition. We will keep working to reduce the current flood of patent litigation that hurts both innovators and consumers."

V. From Bully to Victim: Google's Unusual Situation

Google clearly won't go down without a fight, nor will its handset partners.  But if the intellectual property pressure grows too great, the Android coalition may be rendered unable to compete.

The situation is highly unusual, due to a number of reasons.  First, Google itself is the subject of antitrust scrutiny on reports that it abused its dominant Android position to bully service providers.  Second, the case represents a situation in which small players are able to team up and legally damage a clear-cut market leader -- a relative rarity.

Thus Google -- which of late has become viewed as a bully of sorts -- finds the tables turned, and finds itself a clear victim.

VI. The Big Picture

While the possibility that Android, a beloved smartphone institution, could be sued out of existence by Apple, Microsoft, et al. is alarming to many, this incident in many ways serves most of all to illustrate much broader problems with the U.S. intellectual property system.

Companies in the U.S. are laying claim to increasingly generic intellectual property and using that IP as instrument not to innovate, but to litigate.  The street runs two ways in most cases -- often times IP lawsuits are followed by IP countersuits [1][2].  But often one player in the market is using IP as the general bully, while the other is trying to defend itself.

Many argue the U.S. desperately needs intellectual property reform.  But the federal government under both former President George W. Bush (R) and under President Barack Obama (D) has been slow to act.

The Nortel sale should offer a key signal to the market.  If the federal government blocks it, it may be a sign that the era of using IP as an offensive weapon is coming to an end.  On the other hand, if it's approved without restriction, it will offer a virtual blueprint of how to defeat your competitor.  If the latter scenario plays out consumers may find themselves in an odd market where it's not the competitor with the best products that wins, but the company with the best lawyers and patent portfolio.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This is just getting silly
By BailoutBenny on 7/13/2011 9:25:01 AM , Rating: 0
I disagree with the notion that an idea can be stolen. It is never "owned" because it is just an abstract concept to describe a universal truth that was discovered. Ideas exist in perpetuity, regardless of whether someone actually thinks of them or not. The processes, facts, methods, etc. that people think of when having an idea have always been and always will be, they are just waiting for someone to discover the truth of the matter. So I cannot describe an idea as being owned. If it cannot be owned, it cannot be stolen (see copyright and infringement and why piracy is not theft). The only thing that can be done is attribution. You were the first to think of this, but you don't own it.

Monopolies only exist with government. A government is the only entity that grants exclusive privilege and rights. A free market by its very definition is anti-monopoly.

Again, I'll say that the first to market is the first to profit, so there is no need to have patents anyway. The little guy working in his garage on something doesn't have to reveal his secrets until he releases his product into the world. By being the first, he is guaranteed to profit before someone tries to copy and undercut his product. But again, as I said, competition is the bane of oligarchy and monopoly so we have the patent system which guarantees less competition and more profits for those with the legal means to wield their patents like clubs.

RE: This is just getting silly
By monitorjbl on 7/13/2011 1:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it may have been more accurate to say 'steal your product and design'. In ye olden tymes, there wouldn't be a whole lot of evidence that this occurred if the guy who sole it just went to a different town or state to produce it. And if he had more resources to start with, he could probably do it much better and end up putting the inventor out of business. Nowadays, that's much harder to do.

However, monopolies absolutely exist without government. In a non-regulated market, the first one to market will absolutely and permanently dominate the market. With no regulation on price fixing, espionage, murder, theft, or any of the tactics that could be used to establish an absolute monopoly, a smart company will use all of them. The only reason they don't is because its not in their best interests to break the law. A company wants to win, not compete; it's in their best interests to own 100% of the market share because at that point they control the price, not the market.

In other words, a perfectly free market by your definition is one in which the companies are still bound by some code of ethics. Ethics are simply another form of regulation in this context, and as such would not exist in a perfectly free market. They wouldn't exist even in a real-world market if there weren't laws codifying them and dictating the punishments for breaking them.

RE: This is just getting silly
By fteoath64 on 7/16/2011 11:31:41 AM , Rating: 2
@monitorjbl: Well said!. I will bring it a step further so people will understand one new thing today. A company is a "structure" that uses humans (its employees/owners/etc) to keep itself alive and grow to the maximum it can. ie making as much money as it can. As such, the humans will resort to whatever means (legally mostly, sometimes illegal, other times they don't know and don't care) to achieve this because they felt they are "part" of this company. This structure has no regard for human values and exploit human greed for money and for power to achieve its aims.
So you can see that large companies are totally sterile in working environment and often violate laws intentionally.
Humans can survive without the structure but the reverse is not true, so its is the proverbial enslavement, unless one cuts the cords and exits. The society and mindset need a major change for us to evolve, otherwise we are doomed!.

"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Latest Headlines
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki