I am holder of patents filed in American courts
My wife is a Lawyer, unless you are the one who file the patent yourself (Not using a patent lawyer) You being a Patent Holder does not mean anything beside you being a patent holder. I am also a patent holder as well as a Copyright holder, my wife is a Doctoral of Law from Swedish Lund University, and I have a Master degree in International Business .
That does not mean anything.
Why are you quoting Ireland ?? Look at American, Canadian and British patent law.
I talked about purchasing a company outright when it is not in bankruptcy
Why are you talking about liqudation?
First of all, you are the one who talk about Common Law, I am raising an example on Common Law, Ireland is an example of Common Law, which is the "Anglo-Saxon" law you are referring to. As to why I quote Ireland as an example? You need to ask yourself why you quote Common Law to begin with. When we are talking about Ukrainian Company.
Second of all, Canadian and British are both using Common Law, American Company uses a variation of Common Law. There are no "Canadian Law" or "British Law" when both are using Common Law System.
This picture show the legal system being used in the world, common law is in pink, look at which colour did US, Canada, Ireland and England have in common?
Oh my god, you are talking to me with Patent Law and you don't know US, Canada, UK and Ireland are all using the same legal system?? LOL :Face palm:
Third of all, the example I quote is for Patent transfer, it work the same whether or not the company is in liquidation or was acquired by someone. You don't have the automatic transfer right under Common Law. And that is what that said. And Antonov
IS INDEED IN LIQUIDATION.
This is about Google's acquisition of Motorola. I think they know what they are doing
Look at the 2nd item under "Benefits of the deal"
Facts about Google’s acquisition of Motorola
- On August 15, Google announced an agreement to acquire Motorola Mobility, based in Libertyville, Illinois, for $40 per share. Both companies’ boards of directors have approved the deal.
Benefits of the deal
- Google and Motorola Mobility together will accelerate innovation and choice in mobile computing. Consumers will get better phones at lower prices.
- Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio will help protect the Android ecosystem. Android, which is open-source software, is vital to competition in the mobile device space, ensuring hardware manufacturers, mobile phone carriers, applications developers and consumers all have choice.
Why Motorola Mobility?
- Motorola Mobility’s full commitment to the Android operating system means there is a natural fit between our companies.
- Motorola Mobility was a founding member of the Open Handset Alliance in 2007.
- Motorola Mobility in 2008 made a big bet on Android as the sole operating system for all its smartphone devices.
- Google is great at software; Motorola Mobility is great at devices. The combination of the two makes sense and will enable faster innovation.
- Motorola Mobility has a long history of innovation in communications technology and the development of intellectual property.
- Its many industry milestones include the introduction of the world’s first portable cell phone nearly 30 years ago, and the StarTAC–the smallest and lightest phone in the world when it was launched.
The article said the deal would bring in Motorola Patent to Google, but did it said it was transferred?
Read what happened after ward when Google Sold Lenovo Motorola? Just look at the title of the article, does it mean why google eventually sold Motorola to Lenovo, the Motorola's patent automatically transfer to Lenovo?
https://techcrunch.com/2014/01/29/g...-motorola-mobility-patents-in-sale-to-lenovo/
Google Keeps ‘Vast Majority’ Of Motorola Mobility Patents In Sale To Lenovo
Motorola Mobility is being sold to Lenovo, in a deal worth $2.91B. Google is divesting itself of the handset division it purchased for $12.5B in 2011,
but it will keep some of the assets — including patents.
“Google will maintain ownership of the vast majority of the Motorola Mobility patent portfolio, including current patent applications and invention disclosures,” says
Motorola Mobility CEO Dennis Woodside. “As part of its ongoing relationship with Google, Lenovo will receive a license to this rich portfolio of patents and other intellectual property.
Additionally Lenovo will receive over 2,000 patent assets, as well as the Motorola Mobility brand and trademark portfolio.”
When Google purchased Motorola Mobility, much of the discussion swirled around whether it was buying it simply to own a hardware pipeline on which to deliver its Android juice — or whether it wanted patents for protection. The answer, as is typical, lay somewhere in the middle. Though the Motorola patents never turned out to by incredibly effective winning solo battles against Google’s patent enemies, they did work as a part of a larger tactic which has seen Google aligning itself via cross-licensing with OEMs like Samsung.
One segment of the statement today by Woodside was interesting:
Since being acquired by Google in 2012, Motorola has transformed itself, focusing on solving real consumer problems and providing amazing experiences built on a foundation of pure Android. The result has been Moto X, Moto G, and a reinvigorated Droid line. Together, these devices have won over consumers and critics alike and helped re-establish the Motorola brand around the world.
Indeed, Google’s purchase and investments in Motorola did raise the flagging manufacturer’s profile significantly over the intervening years. They have several well-received smartphones on the market and have made a lot of noise about technology innovations in wearable computing and
DARPA-think-tank-director hires.
Google sold off several aspects of its initial Motorola purchase including its
cable box business. And it managed to leverage the patents — which Google valued at $5.5B — to at least some positive outcome. So, while the monetary ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ here are one for the bean counters to figure out, the strategic victories for Google may actually be fairly strong. According to some maths from analyst
Benedict Evans, Google’s total outlay may have been closer to $7.15B than $12B — the divestitures, retention of patents and the sale price would cut the plain monetary loss down further to under $2B.
There is now a renewed Android vendor on the market peddling Google’s OS, in the care of Lenovo, the logistics firm that made IBM’s old enterprise business the biggest consumer computer retailer in the world. And it has some new cross-licensing agreements on patents — the majority of which it gets to keep.
And, with the purchase of Nest, it has a fresh young hardware company with a design focus and a set of high-profile talent.
“As a side note, this does not signal a larger shift for our other hardware efforts,” noted Google CEO Larry Page in an
announcement today. “The dynamics and maturity of the wearable and home markets, for example, are very different from that of the mobile industry. We’re excited by the opportunities to build amazing new products for users within these emerging ecosystems.”
It may look bad in the raw math, but may not turn out so bad for all parties when the pieces settle into place.
Image Credit:
Hades2k
When Google acquired Motorola in 2012, Google Inherited 17,000 patent issue and 7500 application, allegedly paid 6.9 billions extra for it, Motorola was then sold to Lenovo with 2000 Patent only later in 2014. While Motorola have never been in receivership and the brand is still active, do you still think if one buy another, it inherit all the patent automatically? if so, then should Lenovo inherit more if not all patent? Now, this indicate, what you said is incorrect.
Just because you keep saying if I buy something, something then I will inherit the Patent automatically from what I bought, tell that to Lenovo please, because it's quite obvious that they did not get the automatic transfer you said.
Please, do not waste my time anymore, again, my wife file for my patent right when I applied patent for an exercise machine for disability person back in 2015. And you have totally sidestepped all my previous question, again, unless you can quote from Legal Source, I am not interested in going into this area with you.
