decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Is it reasonable to believe Google authorized the action? | 300 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Is it reasonable to believe Google authorized the action?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 04 2012 @ 09:59 PM EDT

Ever since the official notification that Google was aiming to buy Motorola, people have been claiming Google was - in effect:

    The puppetmaster pulling the strings!
However, there has not been a shred of proof offered for such a claim. Only pure speculation in the form of what appears to be logic:
On the other hand, one of Motorola's lawsuits against Apple did start ~late Jan 2012, and it is reasonable to believe that Google authorized that action.
I say a form of logic because - in my humble opinion - there's no direct link between the logical conclusion and the evidence offered:
    A: Google is going to buy Motorola
    B: After a purchase, Google will be in a position to decide the direction Motorola Management go in
    C: Therefore, Google must be controlling Motorola Management before the shareholders of Motorola can even reap the purchase.
Well... that's one form of logic. Here's another, let's start with outlining the timeline:
    Mar 2, 2010, Apple sues HTC in the US
    Oct 6, 2010, Motorola sues Apple in the US
    Oct 15, 2010 Motorols sues Apple in the US for declaratory Judgement in regards the patents Apple targeted HTC with
    Oct 31, 2010, Apple sues Motorola over touch in the US
    Aug 16, 2011, Google releases statement to buy Motorola
    Nov 6, 2011, Motorola wins an injunction against Apple in Germany (not sure if this is pertaining to the Feb 4, 2012 lawsuit announcements or another, earlier lawsuit)
    Feb 04, 2012 Motorola sues Apple in Germany.
    Feb 12, 2012, Apple sues Motorola in the US.
That isn't a complete history of the mobility wars between Apple and Motorola. However, hopefully it's enough to show that a full year and a half before the announcement of Google to buy Motorola that Motorola was already heavily on the defensive - including responding offensively.

The point being: it's more reasonable to think Motorola is fully in control of it's own decisions with regards it's Legal tactics then it is to think that somehow Google was pulling the strings before the deal was even completed.

At least, that's what the history shows and other then rumor that Google is controlling Motorola, there's no actual evidence in that regard.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )