Hacker News Reader

Comment by thrownaway2424 | Hacker News Reader

Wow the Microsoft angle is pretty corrupt. They paid the plaintiff a million bucks plus 5% of the judgement they get against Google, effectively bankrolling their lawsuit and putting a patent troll on commission.

There's near-endless bitching and whining about Google being evil these days, but even today nobody sinks as low as Microsoft.

View on HN

I read that and thought, how funny if Google bought Vringo out, then determined Google owed $10B. Of course that'd mean paying Vringo, which is a vile thing.

I don't think it's corrupt though. Sounds like MS said hey, here's some money (versus losing a settlement for far more, like they did over XML), and if you win against Google, then we'll pay likewise. Otherwise, you'll fight both of us.

Of course it'd be nice if MS stood up and fought, but it's easy to say what other people should do with their billions.

I read it as Microsoft paid a million dollars and will pay 5% of what Google pays. I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy, but it seems like they believed the patent would win in court and wanted the cheapest way out.

This is it, not sure how you could read this another way. When reading the article it hit me that this was a great bit of business from Microsoft.

A million dollars isn't much for MS to pay to make this go away... and then only paying 5% of Google will be forced to pay if they lose in court.. Microsoft's legal advisor must be happy with himself today

Well I don't see how it is a Win for MS when their ad revenue is ~3% that of Google. In a sense, aren't they paying more ?

> Well I don't see how it is a Win for MS when their ad revenue is ~3% that of Google. In a sense, aren't they paying more ?

How do you figure?

Microsoft earned $3.2 billion in the Online Services division in fiscal year 2013. According to Microsoft's annual report, advertising accounted for "nearly all of" that division's revenues.

$3.2 billion is about 5.6% of Google's trailing 12 months revenues of $57 billion. Subtract out Motorola, and it's about 6% of Google's ad revenues.

What's more, the settlement locks in Microsoft's liability at 5% of Google's. If Microsoft were to grow its share vs. Google, then it would get to pay less than the proportional amount.

I was using these(http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Microsoft-Takes-Small-Share...) numbers for reference. More specifically the second table.

But if google grows it's share... microsoft pays more.

... Actually, could google buy vringo, then just get money off MS?

I mean I guess that is one way to look at it. The other could be that they settled. If Google wins the case they pay 5% more of zero, if they lose, Microsoft pays more but so does Google. Its not totally win-win but yeah I can see it mostly being such. But to even get a settlement like that, wouldn't Vringo have to accept it? It isn't just Microsoft malice.

Bing was infringing and Vringo had tens of millions in cash and big investors like Mark Cuban bankrolling it. They certainly didn't need a paltry million bucks to continue the lawsuit.

Vringo already had the jury verdict against Google before the MS settlement. Also, maybe Bing has only 5% of Google's revenue/profit.

Funny that you seem to be falling victim to what you accuse others of doing i.e kneejerk birching and whining.

Mark Cuban is bankrolling a patent troll? From what I've heard from him, he absolutely detests patent trolls, I'd be surprised if he's backing one.

Yes, unfortunately

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-heres-why-im-takin...

Wow, hedging against patent trolls by backing them is some sick and twisted logic.

> Wow, hedging against patent trolls by backing them is some sick and twisted logic.

But not unexpected for Mark Cuban.

This is the man who owes his status as a billionaire to hedging. If he hadn't hedged out his Yahoo exposure at the very top of the dot-com bubble, then he would've been worth about $60 million by the time his lock-up period expired.

$1.4 billion vs. $60 million. Being one of the richest 500 Americans, vs. not even being able to buy the Dallas Mavericks. You can see why Mark Cuban believes in hedging.

It's entirely logical. You're talking about emotions, not logic.

Patent trolls win => his legit companies lose value, his patent troll gains value

Patent trolls lose => legit companies gain value, patent trolls lose value

To be clear, it is the same logic that justifies patent trolling.

Imagine if some startup "hedged" by covertly transfering funds from customers' bank accounts when they cancel their subscriptions:

Great product => paying customers

Bad product => steal money from customers

Oh yeah, filing a civil suit and outright stealing from people are totally the same thing. Great comparison, bravo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com