Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Sells Motorola Mobility To Lenovo For $2.91 Billion

Posted by Soulskill on from the experiment-over dept.

_0x783czar writes "Google today announced that they will be selling Motorola Mobility to Lenovo for the sum of $2.91 billion USD. Google says the move should allow the company to receive the attention and focus it deserves in order to thrive. From the announcement: '[T]he smartphone market is super competitive, and to thrive it helps to be all-in when it comes to making mobile devices. It's why we believe that Motorola will be better served by Lenovo — which has a rapidly growing smartphone business and is the largest (and fastest-growing) PC manufacturer in the world. This move will enable Google to devote our energy to driving innovation across the Android ecosystem, for the benefit of smartphone users everywhere.' Google was quick to add that this does not signal a move away from their other hardware projects. Additionally Google will 'retain the vast majority of Motorola's patents,' which they hope to continue using to stabilize the Android ecosystem. The deal has yet to be approved by either the U.S. or China."

119 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's gonna leave a mark. A -$10 billion mark!

    captcha: failure

    1. Re:ouch! by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah. I need to get in the middle of one of these transactions somehow.

      Google seems willing to pay 10B to rent companies for a while...

    2. Re:ouch! by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      also, they just paid $3b for nest, wonder when they'll sell that off. seems like they're grasping at straws here.

    3. Re:ouch! by MrEricSir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Google seems willing to pay 10B to rent companies for a while...

      They didn't "rent" anything -- they paid $10 billion for Motorola's patents. The rest wasn't worth much to them.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    4. Re:ouch! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2

      That is an interesting point. Anyone have an idea of how many patents Google was able to buy originally?

    5. Re:ouch! by tgd · · Score: 2

      also, they just paid $3b for nest, wonder when they'll sell that off. seems like they're grasping at straws here.

      If Nest owners could only be so lucky.

      More likely they'll go a couple years, realize its not of any use, and shut it down.

    6. Re:ouch! by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, spot on.

      17,000 patents, plus another 7,500 pending. Also, the patents were higher quality patents, so it just was not the numbers.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    7. Re:ouch! by bob_super · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, owning Moto put them in an uncomfortable situation with the other Android phone makers.
      If Google doesn't make hardware phones, there's less incentive to go fork your own android.

      So they paid 10 billions for patents, give Moto to someone who can both invest in it and leverage the Chinese market, and avoid a war with their customers.

      Decent deal.

    8. Re: ouch! by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not at all, Motorola seems to be making better phones now, and Google has the parents. I assume the purchase was very hedging, in case android as an ecosystem didn't take off, they could try to make them alone. The need to hedge is over, Google gets some money, and a company that has proven it's ability to manage american brands is in the mix.

      Google can now release moto based nexus items (if they dream moto to be good for it), without threatening the ecosystem.

      The hedge on android probably was worth it to them.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:ouch! by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Depends depends. People scoffed at buying Youtube but that seems to have worked out alright. There's a (slightly breathless) but interesting take on what Nest might be for here:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

      ie it's about the server tech for running appliances.

    10. Re:ouch! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      They didn't "rent" anything -- they paid $10 billion for Motorola's patents.

      Actually, other reporting on the issue suggests that over 10,000 out of the 17,000 or so patents are part of the deal too. Larry Page said in his post that they'll be "retaining" the "vast majority" of the patents, but I'm seeing it suggested elsewhere that that may be intended to mean "retaining a license to", rather than "retaining ownership of". Alternatively, maybe it's Google getting the lion's share of the patents, with Lenovo taking the smaller portion and the reporting being a bit off. Either way, it's looking like Google is selling off their ownership for a large number of the patents in question, so if they paid $10B for them, they did it for only a subset of the patents.

    11. Re:ouch! by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not really. They sold various other parts in the past for cash, and got tax writeoffs. Forbes estimates it only really cost them 1.5 billion in cash. With this deal they made money, and likely kept the patents.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    12. Re:ouch! by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Fat lot of good those patents do. Microsoft is still making $2 billion anually from Android licensing agreements.

      http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft...

    13. Re:ouch! by swillden · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google seems willing to pay 10B to rent companies for a while...

      They didn't "rent" anything -- they paid $10 billion for Motorola's patents. The rest wasn't worth much to them.

      According to this Google+ post, it wasn't that bad. Motorola came to Google with $5.6B in cash and deferred tax assets, plus Google recovered some more of their money by selling the set-top box business ($2.35) and some factories ($75M), and finally the sale price to Lenovo ($2.91B).

      So the net cost was about $1.56B. For that Google got most of the Motorola patents and Motorola's advanced products group. Good deal? Bad deal? You decide.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re: ouch! by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not at all, Motorola seems to be making better phones now

      WAY better phones. In fact, except for problems like no SD card slots or removable batteries, I think they're making arguably the best phones in the market. Moto X is no Optimus G2 in terms of speed, but it's plenty fast, its battery lasts the whole day and it has brought something new to the table: voice commands. I think it's pretty useless, but at least it's something new. Notifications that take advantage of the AMOLED display were also cool. Moto G is simply the best value for money right now, it's putting every other phone maker to shame. Both can take a fall and are already running KitKat. If you remember Motorola had the Razr HD going against Samsung's Galaxy S3, you can recognize they improved Motorola's game immensely. Maybe Lenovo will carry the momentum, but I fear not. It's a shame, because I really liked where Motorola was going.

    15. Re:ouch! by symbolset · · Score: 1

      This is what I was going to say. No doubt Google will keep the tax benefits somehow. Lenovo doesn't need them.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    16. Re:ouch! by icebike · · Score: 1

      That's gonna leave a mark. A -$10 billion mark!

      captcha: failure

      Maybe not. According to Forbes Google's net cost might have been as low as $1.5 billion, which means this might be a net gain.
      TLDR: The sold off portions and the tax write-down may have made the out of pocket costs only 1.5B.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    17. Re:ouch! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Chances are, they will just take the Nest patents, disassociate the Nest website and do all the work on an Android app on your phone.
      There is really precious little need for there to be a mother ship for a thermostat to call home to.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re:ouch! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      also, they just paid $3b for nest, wonder when they'll sell that off. seems like they're grasping at straws here.

      If Nest owners could only be so lucky.

      More likely they'll go a couple years, realize its not of any use, and shut it down.

      I remember when that was what Microsoft did on a regular basis. Must be something which companies do once they hit a certain level of revenue.

      we made fifteen billion last quarter, let's go buy the corner donut shop for three billion and then shut it in a couple of years

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    19. Re: ouch! by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not at all, Motorola seems to be making better phones now, and Google has the parents. I assume the purchase was very hedging, in case android as an ecosystem didn't take off, they could try to make them alone. The need to hedge is over, Google gets some money, and a company that has proven it's ability to manage american brands is in the mix.

      Google can now release moto based nexus items (if they dream moto to be good for it), without threatening the ecosystem.

      The hedge on android probably was worth it to them.

      Android had already captured about 75% of all hanset sales by the time the Moto Buy happened.
      So I don't think they were hedging.

      However, you might have hit the mark after all, in a slightly different way: Preventing Android from being eroded.

      Its entirely possible there was a quietly brewing manufacturer revolt going on due to Google competing with its user base by manufacturing phones.
      Samsung leaked a Tizen Phone, and Mozilla funding a phone OS (paid for by Google, as is 95% of everything Mozilla does), and the Chinese also brewing up a phone OS, it might have come to Google's attention that getting rid of Moto might have been the best choice.

      They keep the patents, secure Android's future, and already pocketed the tax write off when acquiring Moto's debts. Win, Win, Win.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:ouch! by icebike · · Score: 2

      and avoid a war with their customers.

      Exactly. Nail hit squarely on the head.

      Samsung leaked a Tizen phone just to get Google's attention.
      Google extracted a patent deal in exchange for getting out of the hardware deal, and now they complete their end of the bargain.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    21. Re:ouch! by shentino · · Score: 1

      They're keeping the patents though.

    22. Re:ouch! by msauve · · Score: 1

      Google: "Sell at a loss, make it up on volume!"

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    23. Re: ouch! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I could have sworn I read somewhere that the CEO of Motorola had been threatening to use Motorola's patent portfolio to sue other manufacturers selling Android devices. So supposedly the top reason Google bought them was to prevent them from adding a Motorola Android Tax on top of the Microsoft Android Tax and Apple Android Tax.

      Conversely, the biggest problem with the purchase for Google is that it could make the other Android device manufacturers nervous that Google would give Motorola preferential treatment. In turn, they might contemplate a jump to Windows Phone, Samsung's Tizen, or the Chinese fork of Android called Aliyun.

      So to me, what Google did here may have been expensive, but I can see the logic behind it. They stop Motorola from extorting the other Android device makers. They move Motorola's devices from 'suck' to 'decent'. They strengthen their own patent portfolio in the Intellectual Property Legal Wars. Then they sell off Motorola so that it's clear they won't screw the other Android vendors to strengthen the brand they own.

    24. Re: ouch! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      All good points, but I keep looking at the Nokia Lumia 1020 and getting jealous of that camera. It's tough these days because so many vendors have been caught paying shills for fake reviews. But I'm hoping some Android device will be as good as the Moto X in most respects and also match - or at least come close - to the camera in the 1020.

    25. Re:ouch! by DuckDodgers · · Score: 1

      I posted this elsewhere, but I read that the CEO of Motorola had been threatening to sue the other Android device manufacturers with Motorola's patents. So Google didn't buy those patents to protect other Android device manufacturers from Microsoft, it bought them to protect those manufacturers from Motorola.

    26. Re:ouch! by Zlotnick · · Score: 1

      It seemed to me that Google bought Nest just to get a copy of the data. You're right, it's even more useful if they get everyone to associate that data with their G+ account.

    27. Re:ouch! by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

      Well at least some one else got 2+2=4 out of this and in this case, Google is getting the better deal due to the cross licensing of the patents. The big question I have, is how many of the patents does Lenevo get with Google having the right to use them?

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    28. Re:ouch! by icebike · · Score: 4, Informative

      Its actually the other way around. Google is keeping all but 2000 patents (some sources indicate over 10K) and licensing them to Lenovo, and no doubt cross licensing those 2000 back from them.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    29. Re:ouch! by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      It's probably more like "Lets make a group of my friends BILLIONAIRES!"

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    30. Re:ouch! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      big companies waste money like its going out of style. if you or I wasted like they did, we'd be homeless.

      but its 'ok' if you are a mega corp. you're 'expected' to be wasteful.

      thing is, think of all the good (for people) that could have been done if companies spent money like you and I spent money: responsibly!

      I look at corporate waste like expensive artwork in lobbies, huge logos that cost money, large buildings that they really don't need - and it annoys me that those that have so much, essentially waste it away.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    31. Re:ouch! by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      I remember when that was what Microsoft did on a regular basis.

      *Cough* Nokia *Cough*

    32. Re:ouch! by non0score · · Score: 2

      So, uh, that's why Google sold Motorola and kept the vast majority (not "some" as you stated) of the patents? Added to the fact that those patents were valued at almost half of the original purchase of Motorola? Oh, and how'd you get the $10B figure? I guess you didn't figure in the sale in Motorola Home for $2.35B? How about the $3B in cash that Motorola had when the original purchase took place? Good job with your "make your own smartphone" theory -- I had a good laugh.

    33. Re:ouch! by non0score · · Score: 2

      And didn't pay $10B for the patents. Here's a nice cost breakdown from public/SEC information or the interwebs:

      Original purchase: $12.5B
      Motorola's cash on hand from purchase: $2.9B (don't know much went with the sale, though...but definitely less than $2.91B)
      Sale of Motorola Home: $2.35B
      Sale of Motorola Mobility: $2.91B
      Tax losses from Motorola: I don't know how much

      So we're talking about a total cost of at most $4.34B for however many patents they're left with. And of course, there's all the invisible moneys they saved from not having to fight patent battles in court. Not to mention all the hardware/manufacturing/supply chain/client expertise they ended up with for use in their hardware projects, such as Glass and pusher robots. Yeah, not a bad deal at all. Heck, with a deal like this, they should do the same to RIMM as well -- widen that moat some more.

    34. Re:ouch! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Forbes pretty much agrees with that analysis, and they valued the Tax write off for Moto losses to have been worth one billion out of the gate, plus 700million yearly. http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

      Then there was the sale of 2 Moto fabs in the far east.

      See also http://www.androidcentral.com/...

      It will be interesting to see how much of the State Side assembly and shipping stays here. The advantages of having Chinese labor has been falling yearly, and Lenovo may just decide to build boards over seas and do the (mostly) automated assembly here in Texas.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    35. Re:ouch! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      oh, no. They are keeping the patents, which are easily worth $9 or $10. So it's not nearly the huge loss that it appears to be.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    36. Re:ouch! by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      It isn't so much that big companies are wasteful, but that when you've reached a certain level of market saturation in your core business area the only way to expand revenue in any significant way is to expand into new business areas. You can almost think of these as new business ventures as opposed to simply purchases by a company, and most new business ventures, even those by established players, fail.

      That said, the Motorola purchase seems particularly insane, the only logical reason for Google to make that purchase was to build their own phone which is something they didn't even try. I'm not really surprised they didn't try given that it would have caused a backlash against both Android and ChromeOS in their entire supply chain for little to no gain, but they should have known that before they bought the company in the first place.

    37. Re: ouch! by crutchy · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Android Tax and Apple Android Tax

      i doubt microsoft and apple think of being on "android welfare" as being a good business model... especially when android winds up putting their mobile divisions out of business

    38. Re:ouch! by crutchy · · Score: 1

      microsoft is on "android welfare"

      if you think that's good for microsoft i suggest you go get a job

    39. Re:ouch! by teg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, the Motorola purchase seems particularly insane, the only logical reason for Google to make that purchase was to build their own phone which is something they didn't even try.

      "Patents"..

    40. Re: ouch! by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 1

      Yes, voice commands are mostly useless, and the the AMOLED notifications were first implemented by the trusty old Nokia N9 years ago.

    41. Re:ouch! by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      Only if they get to keep them.

    42. Re:ouch! by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Pretty sure Microsoft will only shut down the Nokia handset manufacturing (there's more to Nokia than that, but I don't have a handy name for it like "Motorola Mobility") if they decide to abandon the smartphone OS business entirely. Which they could do, admittedly, but I'd be surprised. They've achieved a pretty solid third place in the market, with an overall marketshare similar to that of OS X among PCs. They've started being taken more seriously by major app developers. They're rolling out updates at a decent rate, and many of the crippling issues of the app model in WP7 are already fixed.

      That doesn't mean they won't spin off or re-sell that portion of the business, of course. I'd be surprised if they just killed it though, unless they want to give up on phone OSes entirely. There are at least three other OEMs making WP8 handsets (HTC, Samsung, and Huawei), but the Nokia Lumia line predominates.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    43. Re: ouch! by Xest · · Score: 2

      It's also possible they just wanted to prevent Moto ending up in the hands of someone non-Android friendly, like say, Microsoft as Nokia has ended up.

      By buying them they remove that threat and then have the freedom to spend time finding someone who they can sell to that is willing to commit to working with Android and who isn't likely to themselves sell it on again any time soon.

    44. Re: ouch! by andydread · · Score: 4, Informative
      Well Microsoft:

      1) did say in their internal documents that they intend to use software-patents as a way to "add a cost" to open source software especially Linux and anything based on Linux.

      2) Microsoft funds, and arranges for funding through Baystar Capital and RBC Canada for SCO's failed legal assault on Linux.

      2) Microsoft signs "Linux Patent License" deal with Novell and Xandros. Claiming it's all in the name of "interoperability"

      3) Later Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer claims (without proof) that Linux violates 235 Microsoft software-patents.

      4) Microsoft begins extracting a "Linux License" tax from device vendors such as Nas Maker Buffalo and some printer manufacurers and other device manufacturers.

      5) Android comes on the scene. Microsoft widens their "Linux License" program to include Android. However they still collect on a "Linux License" for servers from Amdocs and Amazon among many others.

      Microsoft is basically implementing what they always planned to do. Use trivial and obvious software-patents to destroy FOSS in the marketplace. The patent welfare is just a beneficial side-effect and i'm sure it helped to pad their most recent record earnings.

    45. Re: ouch! by crutchy · · Score: 2

      still seems like an aweful lot of cost and effort fighting a battle they can't possibly win... it's tough keeping stockholders happy i guess

    46. Re:ouch! by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      But everyone here keeps telling me that Government is inefficient and wasteful and only the profit motive can create efficient services.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    47. Re:ouch! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Google seems willing to pay 10B to rent companies for a while...

      No, they paid $10 billion for most of motorola's patents. If you read the full article you would know that they are not selling them on to Lenovo with the rest of the company. That is still expensive based on how much everyone else paid for the Rockstar patents though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    48. Re:ouch! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      Only if they get to keep them.

      They did. You should really read a bit more about a topic before posting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/busi...

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    49. Re:ouch! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Except that the reason Google wanted the patents was to protect Android and Android device manufacturers from patent litigation, and to fight back against it where possible. Samsung wanted the benefit of that protection so did the deal with Google to cement it.

      Leaking plans for a single phone powered by another OS that is only just staring out in China isn't exactly making Google quake in it's boots.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    50. Re:ouch! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL...everyone said that was a mistake. I guess Google finally listened to Samsung.

    51. Re:ouch! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      As should you, http://www.businessweek.com/ar... Google reason was patents and to build cell phones. They got the patents but failed miserably at the hardware end. $10 Billion plus for patents is an awful lot of money.

    52. Re: ouch! by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      LMOL...umm no. It was not a hedge. Google's intention was to be like Apple and control the hardware. That especially angered Samsung and other Android OEMs. So they got the patents, which was one part of the purchase but failed on the hardware end, which was the other part of the purchase.

    53. Re: ouch! by nicolasgoddone · · Score: 2

      Leave the SD cards and periferial connectors to the chinese, they fit and put pretty much anything-to-anything, im sure Lenovo will cook something good regarding those aspects

    54. Re:ouch! by swillden · · Score: 1

      The original price was $12.5B, not 10B.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    55. Re:ouch! by icebike · · Score: 1

      Agreed, the patents are important. Both to Google and Samsung.

      As for Tizen only starting in China, Samsung has yet to confirm that, but If I were Google, and the single biggest handset manufacturer in the world showed a breakaway device, I'd take notice, If anyone could pull it off, Samsung could.

      Its all guesswork of course. But if Tizen suddenly takes a few more years to appear, ore quietly dies, I would not be very surprised.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    56. Re:ouch! by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      It's not as bad as that. They also got 2.3 billion dollars for a piece of Motorola (the set-top box business) that they previously sold. Motorola had 3 billion in cash when they bought it; I haven't yet seen reports on how much cash is going to Lenovo. And they are keeping most of the patents. When all of this is added up, it probably comes out to a break-even transaction: not a home run but not a strikeout either.

    57. Re:ouch! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You guys aren't getting it. Google only sold the phone division of Motorola. They keep the engineers and patents that came with the deal, and are licensing those patents to Lenovo. They only bought Motorola to have a MAD patent portfolio.

      They bought a company for the part they wanted and sold the parts they didn't want.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    58. Re:ouch! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      big companies waste money like its going out of style. if you or I wasted like they did, we'd be homeless.

      No, rich people waste money like it's going out of style. Hell, a couple of meals at a NYC 5 star restaurant and I'd probably be in debt and homeless.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Poor Motogoogle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That didn't take long...I wonder what Lenovo's plans are?

  3. Google is keeping all the IP... by Red+Herring · · Score: 3, Informative

    Considering the $4.5B that the Rockstar group paid for ~4000 mobile-related patents, and that Google is keeping the "Vast Majority" of the Motorola patents, the bulk of the price difference may well be in the IP.

    A quick google didn't quickly give me a number for how many patents Google is keeping, but if Lenovo is getting about 2000 patents, and that is not the "Vast Majority", then there are a LOT of patents.

    I gotta get me some more patents.

    --
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    1. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by jonwil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Given that Motorola (through the StarTac, DynaTac and MicroTac litterally INVENTED the mobile phone as we know it today, it makes sense that they would have a big patent portfolio.

    2. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I gotta get me some more patents.

      If Thomas Edison were alive today, he wouldn't actually "invent" or "make" anything. He'd just write up and file patents.

      A pile of patents worth $10 billion?

      Yo.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Google didn't pay that much either. Motorolla had about 3 billion cash when bought and tax benefits valid until 2019. The cost is probably eveb less than Rockstar patents.

    4. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by evilviper · · Score: 1

      A quick google didn't quickly give me a number for how many patents Google is keeping,

      My head asplode.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A quick google didn't quickly give me a number for how many patents Google is keeping,

      Google values the privacy of it's OWN data

    6. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, exactly what he already did?

    7. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      The original Motorola deal included 17,000 patents. Google says it's retaining the vast majority, but China Daily is reporting that Lenovo will be receiving 10,000 of them, suggesting that Google is merely retaining a license to those patents, rather than retaining ownership of them. If so, then that would limit their ability to use those 10,000 patents quite a bit.

    8. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      But Qualcomm has the key CDMA patents used for all digital phones (both IS-95 and GSM UMTS) and they're newer.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    9. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by Thomas+Miconi · · Score: 2

      If Thomas Edison were alive today, he wouldn't actually "invent" or "make" anything. He'd just write up and file patents.

      List of Edison patents. All 1,093 of them.

    10. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by ndogg · · Score: 1

      A quick google...

      I see what you did there.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    11. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by non0score · · Score: 1

      Or if you read another site, they say Lenovo is getting 2000 patents and cross licensing the rest. I think this is a lot more consistent with the public statements from the horse's mouth, in addition to the higher trust I have for native sources.

    12. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but all of those patents to actually make mobile phones work are so valuable to the industry that they were made FRAND and hence useless as defense or offense. In various forms, it is less useful to patent the underlying technology than stuff associated with it; others will win court cases to make you license the underlying technology at little cost, but they can't do that with auxiliary patents.

      Yes, we literally live in a world so fucked up that the patent on god-damn cell phone technology is worth thousands of times less than a patent on how to autocomplete a text box a special way or a patent on searching multiple sources at the same time (both patents that Apple leveraged against the Android ecosystem).

    13. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Yes, but all of those patents to actually make mobile phones work are so valuable to the industry that they were made FRAND and hence useless as defense or offense. In various forms, it is less useful to patent the underlying technology than stuff associated with it; others will win court cases to make you license the underlying technology at little cost, but they can't do that with auxiliary patents.

      Yes, we literally live in a world so fucked up that the patent on god-damn cell phone technology is worth thousands of times less than a patent on how to autocomplete a text box a special way or a patent on searching multiple sources at the same time (both patents that Apple leveraged against the Android ecosystem).

      Except that Motorola agreed to make those patents available under FRAND. There was no coercion, no force, nothing. It was voluntarily done by Motorola.

      You see, when a standards body (any standards body - could be IEEE making up the next 802 spec, MPEG making the next video codec, ETSI coming up with next-gen celluar, etc) gets together, what happens is a great patent shuffle. All the participants are rushing in trying to influence the standard to it incorporates their patent. Of course, if the standard does, said patent must be licensed under FRAND terms, otherwise the standard will be troublesome to implement. Everyone implementing the standard will have to pay the same fee as everyone else implementing the standard.

      Of course, a company is free to NOT participate in a standards process in which case their patent will probably not be in the standard.

      So it's a choice - you can license your patent under FRAND terms and get paid a little bit by everyone, or you can implement your product and then use it to force others to license it for a lot more. Small fish in big pool, or lone big fish in small pool.

      Of course, the courts have also ruled that you can't use FRAND patents as leverage - you're supposed to license it to everyone and anyone at the same rate everyone else pays.

      So take away the Apple hate and Samsung love, and look a bit more objectively. Motorola agreed to the terms when they got their patents into the spec. Apple legitimately questioned whether it was paying the same rate as everyone else during negotiations. Samsung blatantly copied, then un-implemented certain features (in fact, given Samsung is not infringing on Apple's patents now indicates that it was never a necessary patent to begin with).

      License negotiations can be extremely messy - it's possible Apple may force Motorola and everyone else to open their books to see what everyone else is paying. (Samsung did, when they asked to see the HTC agreement).

      Of course, one wonders why the ETSI doesn't just go the way of MPEG and many other groups and just have a licensing board (e.g., the MPEG-LA) who simply license it all for you for one fee that everyone pays. Eliminates all sorts of nastiness, everyone pays the same rates, and the split is argued well beforehand.

      Hell, the whole business is so messy, when Apple tried to get their patent in the FRAND pool, it became a "us vs. them" situation. All the carriers wanted the patent in. All the handheld makers wanted it out. Because naturally, they didn't want to pay Apple or have it influence negotiations.

      Of course, one should also see that standards are made not based on technical superiority, but who has the most political power - who can get their patents in, who can kick the new guy to the curb and exclude their patents, who can scratch each other's back, etc.

    14. Re:Google is keeping all the IP... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Agreed. That makes a lot more sense.

  4. Google shift in strategy, make others build better by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As much as they might say they are still building hardware - obviously not to the same degree.

    Instead Google is focusing on making other hardware makers produce better Android devices, the evidence of which is the smack-down Google gave Samsung at CES.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  5. These kids with their money by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

    First they overpay for Motorola Mobility. Now they're overpaying for Nest. Is Eric Schmidt still available to provide "adult supervision"?

    At least this will even out their recent cash flow: $3.2B out for Nest, $2.9B in for Motorola. Well, almost - they're still down by a mere $300M.

    1. Re:These kids with their money by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      First they overpay for Motorola Mobility. Now they're overpaying for Nest. Is Eric Schmidt still available to provide "adult supervision"?

      At least this will even out their recent cash flow: $3.2B out for Nest, $2.9B in for Motorola. Well, almost - they're still down by a mere $300M.

      Which is a bargain for all of the patents they will keep from the Motorola acquisition. Even if you factor in the additional $10 billion they paid for Motorola, minus the cash Motorola had on hand at the time.

    2. Re:These kids with their money by patfla · · Score: 1

      Of course, with all the cash it has Google may simply be paying to retire a competitor from the field.

    3. Re:These kids with their money by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1, Funny

      They paid $12.5B for Motorola and got $3.2B back, so that's $9.3B for patents. Is that the part that's a bargain?

    4. Re:These kids with their money by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money."

      - Senator Everett Dirksen

    5. Re: These kids with their money by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Except that the Motorola acquisition also included ~$5B in cash and tax incentives, plus the other parts that Google already sold, plus the other parts of Motorola they're still keeping.

      I'm on the shitty mobile site, so sorry I can't be more specific. But check the other threads; some are estimating the patents cost as little as $1.5B.

      Thank you. I couldn't remember how much cash Motorola had. I thought it was between $3-5 billion. Plus didn't Google sell the cable box group for a couple billion almost right away too? The entire deal was to pad their patent war-chest to defend Android anyhow

      I have no idea what the actual value is, but they picked up 15,000+ patents in the deal. Which is pretty damn convenient. Especially since the Apple/Samsung patent shitfest started.

  6. WTF by cfulton · · Score: 1, Funny

    WTF that makes no sense. A 10 billion dollar loss on a company they really just purchased. And they are moving aggressively into the hardware space on all other fronts. Google seems to be a churn and burn company. If it isn't paying off right now they close it or sell it.

    --
    No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
    1. Re:WTF by oodaloop · · Score: 5, Informative

      Maybe you missed the part about them keeping the patents. This is part of their strategic goals of supporting Android without having to bother with managing a phone company.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  7. A great American company sold to China by jmcbain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Motorola has a distinguished history as a great American company. It was founded in 1928 and outlasted all its electronics contemporaries from that era, including RCA and Dumont. It had a great hit in the Razr (the iPhone before the iPhone). Now Google has sold Motorola to China.

    1. Re:A great American company sold to China by adolf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Motorola has a distinguished history as a great American company. It was founded in 1928 and outlasted all its electronics contemporaries from that era, including RCA and Dumont. It had a great hit in the Razr (the iPhone before the iPhone). Now Google has sold Motorola to China.

      Nope.

      Motorola Solutions is still based in the Illinois, making top-tier wireless communications gear for commercial and public safety sectors.

      All that has been sold to China is what used to be the Crappy Consumer Products/Race to the Bottom division of Motorola:

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    2. Re:A great American company sold to China by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Motorola has a distinguished history as a great American company.

      If Motorola Mobility had a distinguished history of consistent profits, they would have never sold out to Google in the first place.

    3. Re:A great American company sold to China by unixisc · · Score: 1

      And there was their STB group - the former GI

  8. Silicon Valley by frinkster · · Score: 1

    Silicon Valley sure knows how to rake in the cash hand over fist, but has absolutely no clue what to do with it once they have it.

  9. That explains the Samsung deal by jonabbey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, that nicely explains why Samsung announced that they were willing to work more closely with Google to make Samsung phones cohere to Google's direction with Android.

    --
    - jon

    Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
  10. Re:Google shift in strategy, make others build bet by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    the smack-down Google gave Samsung at CES.

    I'm not sure there's enough information yet to know it was a smack-down. If part of the agreement was that Google has to sell Motorola, that would be quite a concession. And of course it may be that the agreement is for Google to adopt some or all of Samsung's UX design into Android. That would result in them shipping a standard Android distribution in future, without them actually changing anything.

  11. Re:Cost? by JStyle · · Score: 1

    They sold the set-top box division for 2 Billion pretty early on, so, the patents are worth ~7B.

  12. Wow. Major shopping spree by msobkow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's a pretty big shopping spree Lenovo has been on. I sure hope it pays off for them -- I like their hardware, despite all the naysayers out there, I've never had problems with their stuff yet.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  13. Yuck by kaatochacha · · Score: 1, Funny

    Well, I guess that whole "built in USA" thing on the MotoX was a fluke.
    and here I actually had a positive feeling about Google for a bit. Oh well.

  14. Re:Google shift in strategy, make others build bet by PRMan · · Score: 1

    I prefer most of the Samsung apps to the Google ones.

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  15. This was always the point by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This was always the point of the purchase. Google needed those patents to defend themselves. They bought the company to get the patents, and now that they've decided which ones matter, they are passing along the rest of the company to someone who cares. They got what they wanted, paid the price they felt was worth it, and are now happily sitting with patents that they can use to counter attacks by other patent holders in the smart phone market. I believe there was intense speculation about this being the motive when we first discussed this purchase on Slashdot.

    1. Re:This was always the point by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      Agree. I don't know why there's so many posts here saying this is stupid. I think it's well-thought out plan.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  16. Good for Android... not sure about Motorola by jareth-0205 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Gotta say this is probably a better state for Android to be in from a "standard platform" point of view, a company making hardware and licencing its software to other hardware manufacturers hasn't work out very well in computing in the past. Either own the lot (Apple) or provide yourself as a service but don't compete (Microsoft pre-Surface). If you compete and licence, you end up being Apple during the clone years, or Palm. Companies might take a free ride on a crocodile, but they'll get off when they can cause it's not very safe...

    Lenovo has done a decent job with Thinkpad, so it's not entirely doom for Moto either.

    1. Re:Good for Android... not sure about Motorola by swillden · · Score: 2

      I always suspected that Google would divest itself of Motorola, mostly for the reason you mention. In addition, I noticed that Google was operating Motorola as a completely separate business, not merging them with the rest of the company at all. That might have been to help maintain an arms' length distance to reassure other handset manufacturers, but I think it was mostly because they knew this day was coming. They just had to get Motorola back on track as a phone maker so they could sell it for a reasonable price while retaining nearly all of the patents.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  17. Lenovo again? by LostInTaiwan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lenovo again? First you took my Thinkpad now my Moto X.

    I guess the "Don't be Evil" Google is long dead. The principled stand of exiting from the Chinese market, followed by assembling the Moto X in the US, then selling Motorola to Lenovo? ? ? WTF, Google.

    1. Re:Lenovo again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Troll much?

      Lenovo has ALWAYS made the Thinkpad, even when it was called the IBM Thinkpad.

  18. Lose $10 billion here, $10 billion there... by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 1, Funny

    Soon you're talking real money.

  19. Re:Ouch by AuMatar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As I pointed out elsewhere, this isn't the only sale from that purchase. Look here

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

    They already sold off parts of that 13 bn for 2 bn in cash and 15% stake in another company. This makes another 2 bn. They also got to keep the patents, and got massive tax writeoffs for years. They may have come out ahead on cash (depending on the tax writeoffs) and definitely ended up buying those patents for a few billion max.

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  20. The big question by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    I thought the very purchase of Motorola Mobility was the patent trove. It would protect Android from attacks by Apple and the like.

    So I wonder why they're selling to Lenovo now. It's kind of odd when you come right down to it.

  21. Lenovo spending spree by symbolset · · Score: 1

    I thought they were barely profitable. They must be scraping money together somehow.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  22. Lenovo expanding too quickly? by Dorianny · · Score: 1

    The ink is barely dry on the acquisition of IBM's x86 server business for about $2.3 billion and now the purchase of Motorola for $2.91 billion. These could be genius longsighted moves but to me it seems that Lenovo is in danger of trying to expand too quickly.

  23. I would give him a pass by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I'm not going to complain about that because it happens to me more than I care to admit.

    It takes a little more work but I think we can all parse what he was saying.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I would give him a pass by Threni · · Score: 1

      Complaining is being polite. Most people will see a block of reply with no added text and move on, rather than compare two blocks of text and look for the delta. Life's too short. Put the effort into writing, and people might put the effort into reading it.

  24. Re:Google shift in strategy, make others build bet by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

    If you're going to reply to something, can you make sure your reply isn't in a quote block?

    No.

    You're not trying very hard, are you?

    Look

    I

    hate

    you

    --
    Is 1563649 a prime number?
  25. Re:WHAT?!? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

    Or a G, for half that.

  26. Need the cash for Lycos by michaelmalak · · Score: 2

    They need the extra cash to pay Lycos for AdWords royalties.

  27. Re:Foxconn making Iphones? by msobkow · · Score: 2

    It is a big thing when the main beef people have is that "build quality dropped."

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  28. Not sure I speak this language. by Peteroo · · Score: 1

    "Ecosystem"?

  29. Re:How much you want to bet by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

    You are a fool who doesn't understand what a tax writeoff is.

  30. also anti-lawsuit lifevest ? by nicolasgoddone · · Score: 1

    Not only Lenovo can produce good phones, but I suppose that Lenovo being a Chinese parent company it should be a little harder for known manufacturers with patent-trolling spirits to locally sue a Chinese company over some meaningless bullsh!t ... rounded rectangles un phone design for example?

  31. Patents were the main point... by thevirtualcat · · Score: 1

    But I'm sure that gutting the corporate culture that gave us things like MotoBlur and setting a major Android manufacturer on a path to sell "almost but not quite Nexus" devices also plays a fairly large part in their greater strategy for Android.

  32. Re:Wow. Major shopping spree by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

    I'm still impressed with the build quality of the ThinkPad and ThinkCenter line, and that acquisition was back in 2005.

    Actually, the big relief is that their support is still as good as ever. I've called for parts (under warranty) at 3 PM and had the part show up the next day. I don't think I've ever had to sit on hold for more than 5 minutes before speaking to an actual person, and most of the time it's been no hold at all. My previous employer was an all-IBM shop and we were concerned when we heard they were selling their desktop and laptop division, but I don't think Lenovo has let thing slip.

    --
    Redundancy is good And also good.
  33. Re:And the chip manufacturing is now Freescale by unixisc · · Score: 1

    That is Freescale Semiconductor now - they still own dragonball i.e. 68k, ARM and PPC CPUs

  34. Not too surprising by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    Google's main priority is the Android ecosystem. One attractive property of Android is the level-playing field (or at least one that is only reasonably bumpy rather than mountainous). Google's ownership of Mobility gave it patents that will probably be useful, and of course they aren't letting go of those, so what is sold is not what is bought. Google's ownership of one player can at least give the impression that Google will favour its own, or at least will tend to under commercial pressure. Letting Mobility go, even for a significant writedown compared to what they paid, may in the long run be repaid in the value of Android compared to what it would have been had Google held onto Mobility. We can never tell, though, since we can't do a copy-on-write fork of the universe, and run both cases in parallel: and if we could there would surely be better uses for the facility than evaluating smartphone economics.

    --
    John_Chalisque