Very interesting to see that Google has bought Motorola Mobility this morning!
http://gizmodo.com/5830842/google-is-buying-motorola

I was wondering how MM would do after being shed so unceremoniously (IMO) from Motorola.
So, at least one of my stocks went in the right direction this month... <facepalm>

I wonder what Google with do with the added patent library and extra software manpower.

Perhaps we'll see an end to MotoBlur, which so many Moto-users love to hate. Or maybe it will morph into GoogleBlurBuzzPlus.

edit:
I'll drop this link to /. here- better comments than Gizwhackoff.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/08/15/1228202/Google-To-Acquire-Motorola-Mobility-For-125-Bill

I'm excited for it, and it's interesting to see the [admittedly cut-out] positive responses of other Android handset manufacturers.

It's early in the process still, but I'm already a little pessimistic about the prospect of eliminating Motoblur. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the proposed purchase would see Google operate MM as an independent company, and they would continue to license Android to them. I'm sure there will be more communication with Motorola than other handset manufacturers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to see that damned Motoblur on their handsets.

But with any luck, Google will have them keep it off, and perhaps that'll make other handset makers take notice. It would certainly make it easy to recommend one widely-available Android phone over the others.

I'm still waiting for the Nexus Prime. If it exists, that'll be my next phone. And not a moment too soon, my Nexus One is starting to not do so well...

I found most of the comments to be quite exceptional, far better than the run-of-the-mill chatsite, almost empeg bbs quality.

The one that impressed me the most was this one:

Some people are saying it's hw/sw integration, and others are all about patent trolling. In reality, this is part of Google's effort to strengthen its position in eCommerce, specifically mobile and POS payments.

Put an RFID chip in every phone and you instantly get an EMV-compliant card replacement and an EMV-compliant card acceptance point. Forget all that Square magstripe bs - this would be the real thing. Combine it with Google Wallet and you have an end-to-end solution where anyone can make or accept payments via their phone. With Google controlling the hw and the sw they can set the standards. To make it even more interesting, think of what would happen if/when Google buys MasterCard.

Go ahead with this and you'll have every taxi driver, flea market, convention booth and convenience store in the country with cheap access to payments issuance and acceptance. Now move that model to Africa and the Middle East. The future of mobile isn't handsets - it's payments.

If what he says is true, Google could become a serious PayPal competitor.

tanstaafl.

I'm not sure I'm quite so much in agreement. I think that's a nice possible side benefit that Google will get, but I think the patent acquisition is clearly the biggest reason for this purchase.

Besides, there are already several solutions that give those people (taxi drivers, flea markets, etc) access to cheap mobile payments. The aforementioned Square gives them that. Yes, NFC is probably a good goal, but it's going to be a LONG transition to the point where you'll be able to leave your card at home.

A quick additional gripe: I think that commenter also doesn't understand what "patent trolling" means. Google is trying to buy patents to defend actual products they have a hand in. That's not trolling.

The announcement sounds more like a bailout than a buy-out. It will be interesting to see where this goes. If Motorola keeps running as it has been, it's only going to continue to be a money loser.

It's also going to be interesting to see what implications this has for the openness of Android.

I wonder how long ago this was being planned. Motorola was after all the first to launch a proper Android tablet, with Google working directly with them to make the Xoom. I'm thinking it might have been an acquisition test to see how well the companies might be able to work together.

The pessimistic analysts out there have a variety of complaints:

- Motorola is some 60% the size of Google, making the merger process a whole lot more work than inhaling a small startup.

- Motorola is losing money. Fixing that is going to mean more than just shoveling money at them and leaving them alone. Google's going to have to do a fair amount of rearrangement.

- How, exactly, is Google going to relate to other Android licensees. Will the Moto division get preferred access? If you're Samsung or HTC, you're looking at this deal as a serious pain point. Of course, Microsoft is in bed with Nokia, so you're facing the same sort issue with Win 7 Mobile. It's not like either Samsung or HTC or any of the others have the devs to truly fork Android and form a proper consortium of whatever sort to manage it.

- Or maybe Google just strip mines Moto for its patents and sells off a random-gear manufacturer.

On the flip side, I see lots of benefits:

- Moto could benefit from a Google-imposed coding discipline. Really, let Moto do the hardware and let Google do all the software, all the way down to the device drivers. That would be great. (See also, the end of MotoBlur.)

- Motorola also makes cable DVRs and AT&T U-verse boxes. Port Android/Google TV to those and you've now got something more interesting than the cruft that Moto is shipping now, and you could maybe even have a serious competitor for TiVo. Finally!

- Google, by controlling the whole stack, has that much more leverage when dealing with big telcos like Verizon that want to impose their own crap vision upon our phones. Google, like Apple, can tell them to buzz off, this is how it needs to be. Here's a patch. We want it out there, so we're pushing it now.

I believe word is that buy-out talks started approximately 5 weeks ago, so this wasn't on the table for very long. Rumor has it MS was also interested in Moto.

Google is only acquiring Motorola Mobility, which was spun off from the Motorola parent company early this year. The "home" division of the Mobility company may very well play into Google's quest for relevance in the living room. They've made absolutely zero impact with their GoogleTV project so far. To call it an abject failure is to put it mildly and too kindly.

If the new Moto doesn't get preferential Android treatment, including co-development, then I don't really see that the acquisition was worth anywhere near 12 Billion and it's most definitely just a very expensive patent gamble. Other Android licensees had better be very worried. Their canned and nearly identical responses to today's news were laughable.

As far as competition goes, I don't think either Microsoft nor Apple have much to worry about with this move. I don't think this deal alone will significantly change how the platforms currently compete.

While what you're saying is certainly possible, I'd just point out that it's far from rare for Google to partner with a manufacturer on a device. Every year they've worked with a manufacturer to build their flagship phone product. HTC for the G1 then the Nexus One, then Samsung for the Nexus S and supposedly the Nexus Prime.

I'm sure Google would have loved to buy Samsung, but that's probably not even possible, is it? It certainly would have been a better phone manufacturer, and I'd love to see their Android skin wiped from the market...

Those were hysterical! They were totally the tech company spokesman equivalent of that scene from Bull Durham ("we're taking it one game at a time, etc..").

From a hardware perspective, I'm not sure that's true. While making a career out of sucky software, they've had several hardware hits that have revolutionized the industry, including StarTac, RAZR and original DROID.

Samsung, while producing acceptable products, has never rocked the industry as I recall.

I like a company with a culture of innovation to be paired with Google. I think it's a good match

Gruber has a good writeup posted now, initially tearing apart Dan Lyons's take on the situation, then pointing towards a story I missed. Motorola was planning to sue other Android phone makers. Being that this came up after the five week period when Motorola Mobility was in talks to be acquired, it may have been an empty threat to raise the buyout price, but still a very dangerous one. Civil war between Android vendors would have been a very bad situation, leaving Google with little choice here.

The next few years will be interesting to see how this all unfolds in the smartphone/tablet space. No one side in this fight is clean, and some of these moves are starting to get to company destroying levels.

But none of those products were actually revolutionary and none of them did much at all to change the landscape of the mobile phone market. Each of those phones series sold only marginal numbers in the grand scheme of things, perhaps the RAZR having been the most impressive for its times. The StarTac in the early days was a fairly expensive and high-end proposition but it didn't filter down through the market in competitor's products. Neither did the RAZR. Motorola just kept spinning iterations until the products ran out of steam, not being able to improve on the first releases significantly at all. The "Droid" is a Verizon branding which applies to many phones, but Motorola's first was just another run of the mill iPhone copycat. A copycat of the phone that truly did change the mobile handset market forever. The most dramatic shift and progression in the history of the mobile phone in fact. In recent times (10+ years), I think only the iPhone can be called revolutionary. If you go 20 years then I'll give some props to Nokia as well for really bringing the small-ish candybar to the forefront of the industry.

The only revolutionary Motorola phone, IMO, was their 1980's brick which started this whole portable phone thing.

I can't see Google ever partnering with any other handset maker on a new Nexus-style product when they now have Motorola in-house. I can definitely see them trying this again for real this time with Motorola's carrier contacts and retail power. I'm not sure they'll be able to match other Android licensees products however unless they screw them somewhat on the software side.

I'll say it again, I don't think Apple is worried at all and I'm sure Microsoft is going to use this turn of events to try and sweet talk some additional Windows licensees to the table. The Moto patents so far sound like non-issues with respect to on-going legal struggles with the likes of Apple. Google will find out exactly what they've acquired soon enough.

Is anybody else bored of the patent merry-go-round yet?

So Motorola has been bought up (almost certainly for patents imho) where exactly does this leave Nokia? Surely it's only a matter of time now before somebody comes along and scoops them (and their patent portfolio) up? (Microsoft?) You'd have thought that Nokia would be attractive not only because of their patents, but because they also own Navteq.

And who bought C3 technologies? Surely it had to be Nokia as they were already using their data, but, are Nokia really in a position to be purchasing other companies? And if it wasn't Nokia, who the hell was it?

Adrian

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like no companies actually checks to see if they are violating a patent before releasing a product. It seems they are just hoping nobody sues- and if they do they go on a buying spree. So patents have become tools for big companies to bash other companies. If you are a small guy trying to get patent protection for your idea, forget it. Big companies have better lawyers and patent law is so unspecific and specialized the better lawyers always win.

Sounds about right from my very limited knowledge.

I think what is happening in the mobile phone world just makes more a mockery of a system that is already a joke.

How would it be practically possible to do anything else ?

There are many tens of thousands of possibly relevant patents floating about, how could you possibly check thay every bit of code/architecture doesn't violate one of these many patents. Especially given the total opaque way the damn things are written.

You'd go broke long before you got any product out of the door.

I believe that's because if you checked for patents first, and got caught releasing an infringing product, you've moved into the willful infringer category, and are liable for treble damages. Better to just believe that nothing but your own stuff is patented.

Software patents are stupid.

I want to patent this opinion.

Prior art trumps your patent.

D'oh! Curse you, patent law!