Google to sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo
- Thread starter Snax
- Start date
Soldato
Google are not Apple. They have never wanted to use patents to hold other companies to ransom. They will still receive the licencing fees you mention above though.
Soldato
Motorola Mobility has been the corporations red-headed stepchild for years.
I'm guessing Google got tired of Moto's painfully slow development cycle.
I'm guessing Google got tired of Moto's painfully slow development cycle.
Soldato
Apparantly Project Ara will stay with Google: http://www.gsmarena.com/project_ara_will_remain_in_google_after_the_sale_of_motorola-news-7699.php
But it's very sad to see Motorola being sold off, the Moto X and G was very promising. Hopefully they can still function independantly, but it's up to Lenovo...
But it's very sad to see Motorola being sold off, the Moto X and G was very promising. Hopefully they can still function independantly, but it's up to Lenovo...
Last edited:
Soldato
It was always just about the patents, which Google are keeping 
Not to mention the $3+B in cash and realised assets Moto were carrying.
Soldato
Replace "Apple" with "Qualcomm" and you'll be on the right track.
I doubt they had $3bn in cash. Makes it a target for leveraged buy outs.
Yeah when google bought moto moto had 3+billion in cash and sellable hard assets, just seen it broken down, as is, without knowing the intricacies of the contract, Google are no more than 2 billion down but this move bought peace with all their oem's so even if it ends that they lost $2B they'll think it was cheap and money well spent.
Last edited:
Soldato
how much did google lose on this? did they not pay a heck of a lot more?
paid about $12Bn for Moto back in 2012.
Man of Honour
On cnbc this morning they put a value of about 2.5b for the patents after a similar breakdown to yours it was roughly negative 2b but it opens up loads of opportunities for synergies and the licensing income should see Google up on the deal.
See this thread for a couple of good related reads
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18576743
Last edited:
I think it's the right decision. Probably a factor from the start
They could have made some pretty amazing phones.. But it's not really Google
LiLike others said they are going in more exotic direction in terms of a grand ecosystems. Do they want to be weighted down making handsets and annoying Samsung etc?
I doubt it, they probably could have been successful but it's not them. They got the patents, sold the bulk physical side for cheap. They can take that cash hit. It's the IP they value
Would have done the same. Glad I didn't buy a moto phone
They could have made some pretty amazing phones.. But it's not really Google
LiLike others said they are going in more exotic direction in terms of a grand ecosystems. Do they want to be weighted down making handsets and annoying Samsung etc?
I doubt it, they probably could have been successful but it's not them. They got the patents, sold the bulk physical side for cheap. They can take that cash hit. It's the IP they value
Would have done the same. Glad I didn't buy a moto phone
Associate
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/did-google-really-lose-on-its-original-motorola-deal/
They effectively paid $3.2bn for the patents, according to the article above, which they had previously valued at being worth $5.5bn.
They effectively paid $3.2bn for the patents, according to the article above, which they had previously valued at being worth $5.5bn.
Soldato
Apple use their patents to stifle competition.
I haven't yet seen Google go on the offensive, in a first strike sense, with their patents. They use them defensively if needed.
I am happy to be corrected though
There is a flip side to this. If companies feel they can't adequately protect the new things that they believe give them and edge in the market against their competitors they are much less likely to invest substantially in R&D so we end up with a stream of "same ol same ol". Google has been a target for a lot of this stuff because of it's disregard for other companies intellectual property. It's much easier to release a "free" operating system (for example, if you copy stuff which has cost other companies billions to research).
Having said that I think Patent law should be revised to have a relatively short life for protection (5, maybe 10 years after which I don't think you could claim its "innovative" any more) and there needs to be a clamp down on the blindingly obvious (Patenting a method of engaging a mechanical switch to activate an electrical charge creating the emission of photons, or turning the light switch).
Having said that I think Patent law should be revised to have a relatively short life for protection (5, maybe 10 years after which I don't think you could claim its "innovative" any more) and there needs to be a clamp down on the blindingly obvious (Patenting a method of engaging a mechanical switch to activate an electrical charge creating the emission of photons, or turning the light switch).