Page Not Found

Error: Invalid Request

Comments

I don’t see it!While being Alex Tajirian – Jul 08, 2008 11:56 AM PST

I don’t see it!

While being guilty of not reading the entire patent application, the last line of the Abstract says, “A higher bid by a network information provider will result in a higher rank value.”

However, current advertising auctions are not the same as the GoTo mechanism. Google, for example, multiplies each advertiser’s bid by its “quality score,” which is based on click-through rates and other (unknown) factors, to compute the advertiser’s rank. It then charges each advertiser the smallest amount sufficient to exceed the rank number of the next advertiser. This is radically different from the last line of the patent Abstract.

Yahoo recently moved away from GoTo’s “the higher the bid, the higher the rank,” to an auction mechanism similar to Google’s.

Moreover, Google’s current auction has some undesirable properties, but it is being used because of some attractive bidding procedures, ie, theoretically there are better revenue generating auction mechanisms than Google’s, but are less user friendly.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

Alex you can't be logical about patents! Brough Turner – Jul 08, 2008 1:04 PM PST

Alex, you also can't go by a patent's abstract. The issue is whether someone is implementing each of the clauses in any one or more of the claims.

There is enough meat in '361 that Google decided to settle, albeit under pressure when they were preparing for their IPO. Among other things Usman suggests, is that Microsoft may want access to the benefits of the Google-Yahoo settlement (whose terms we are guessing).

Read Usman's full article for what has already gone on with this patent and what the related business issues could mean for Microsoft.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

Brough, You are correct on Alex Tajirian – Jul 21, 2008 10:40 AM PST

Brough, You are correct on the two counts: I cannot make any conclusions without reading the entire patent application (which I wouldn’t have understood anyway) and I should have read Usman’s full article. Here’s my two cents:

Facts:
1. Acquisition of Yahoo is more expensive than licensing the technology from Yahoo.
2. Patent 361 owned by Yahoo is relates to PPC search results.

Question: Thus, why is Microsoft taking the more expensive option?

Microsoft, with the acquisition of Yahoo, gets something of value in addition to the patent that it cannot get without. Plausible sources of additional value are:
1. Other Yahoo assets.
2. Better ability to compete directly with Google
3. Extract some money from Google for past and/or future use of patent.

It seems to me that after the merger Microsoft would not be accused of trolling if one were to consider the discussion by Joachim Henkel and Markus Reitzig in “ Patent Sharks,” HBR, June 2008, availalbe here; neither is Yahoo. (I hope to learn another lesson or two about trolling.)

Yahoo has to analyze whether
Value of [“hush money”, ie, “strategic investment” from Google + stay independent] is greater than Microsoft’s premium. If yes, then it should reject Microsoft’s offer. However, in whose eyes are we measuring staying independent? CEO founders are more likely to attach a higher value to staying independent than the market. A “typical” over-guesstimate is a factor of 3.

Success depends on staying independent and Microsoft will not take legal action against Yahoo and/or Google related to the patent agreement.

For Google, it would favor no merger if:
Cost of [Continued access to patent] is less than the cost of access to patent after a merger.

Success depends on Microsoft not taking any legal action against Google and no flags raised by the Justice Department for a cozy Google-Yahoo relationship.

Reply | Link | Report Problems

To post comments, please login or create an account.