Google nabs patents from defunct mini-phone maker

Google has paid $4.9 million to acquire the patents of defunct Israeli phone maker Modu, according to a report from an Israeli newspaper. Calcalist reports (Google Translate) that the web giant will purchase "dozens" of patents from the shell of Modu after a deal was approved by an Israeli court. When we asked Google to …

[Asgard]

@"defend against legal attack"

900M here, 4.9M there, how much more do they need to spend to be protected?

All this buying patents to protect from patent legal attacks makes me wonder, how many millions or even billions does any company (or more to the point, inventor) need to spend these days to be relatively safe from patent legal attack?

All the money Google need to spend on patents looks like a very big example of how badly the Patent System has got broken. No small company could ever hope to protect itself like this, so patents definitely cannot protect a lone poor or even relatively rich inventor. (Even someone with £1M in the bank would struggle). So it looks like the patent system requires a billion+ to have a hope of being protected now.

That isn't even close to the original intention of patents.

[Anonymous Coward]

About 1B per year at the very least

Welcome to the world of IT as originally set up by one a couple of 3 letter corporations.

[Anonymous Coward]

Beware shill at work

FM is well known to be at best 'economical with the truth'.

Everything he says should be taken with a really big pinch of salt.

Just ask him who is funding him. Then he clams up.

[Anonymous Coward]

As you do

Since when does anyone in this industry says who's really funding them.

Let's hear who's funding YOU for example?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hang on...

What does Frequency Modulation have to do with this?

Apart from the fact it's a rather famous example of patents *not* protecting the inventor (in this case, Edwin Armstrong) from another party (in this case, RCA) stealing an idea.

I do agree though, this patent thing is out of control.

[Anonymous Coward]

Defend against Microsoft + Nokia? (+ Skype)

Doesn't look too unlikely at this point. LG, HTC, Dell, Samsung were signed up and likely losing interest at this point....slumping initial sales...and then suddenly Nokia is onboard. (granted there may be a small amount of nepotism)

So the question is demanded, defense in a looming war...perhaps? In a world of throwaway email addresses, what is worthwhile and worth fighting for? What is sticky?

[kain preacher]

OR

Google is looking to start some thing and wants to be protected.

[zxcvbnm]

Suspiciously light

Wow, I think my actual credit card weighs more than 1.5g

[Ilgaz]

Just don't check wikipedia

I saw how devices look and the idea of the company with jackets. Absolutely beautiful with decent specs for that size. even has full bluetooth support. Want to buy? Yes. it is just the company went bankrupt.

Weird thing is, never heard of company or devices before.

[JaitcH]

Nortel patents, many at the cost of the Canadian tax payer

Way back in the early days of digital cell phones, when Americans had a lighter weight (than the famous Motorola brick) cell phones, the Canadian government decreed that when it introduced new technologies it would not licence dumb portable telephones.

It laid out a plan to guide manufacturers and Nortel jumped on the plan as a way to make big money. It also received large Canadian government grants to develop these technologies. If anyone gets to buy the portfolio I hope it is Google rather than some patent troll.

Pity Canadian taxpayers aren't able to receive a proportion of the patent sales, they surely deserve it.

[ysth]

Yet another cite of anti-Android lobbyist FM?

Muller may well say that's why there are so many lawsuits. I and others would say there are so many because many of them are filed for the principal reason of fueling anti-Android news stories. Which ironically enough is also the reason he makes his claim.

[Flybert]

what's a shame

is that all these companies will pass these costs of *patent protection* to the consumer

I was wondering how a current smartphone can cost $500+ *retail* or as little as $50 [upgrade] + $50 [taxes in California] with a new 2 year contract provided you shell out about $100 per month ( $40 + $10 [text] + $30 [data] + $10 [insurance] + $10 [taxes] typical in USA ]

gotta wonder how much of that is *protection* money built in for the PatentMobsters™ paying each other off