If a judge liked his Android phone that much (which is really straining credulity), he would recuse himself.

True, the MMI deal bolsters Google's patent portfolio, but is it enough? MS and Apple were and are still suing MMI. They apparently don't think the patents are strong enough to deter them.

Some of MMI's patents are not going to be relevant. Some are going to be FRAND encumbered, or even already licensed. It's not the quantity that matters. It's the quality.

You and I are probably proof of that.

But seriously, no judge is going to let the fact that he is really keen on his phone affect his judgement. That's ludicrous.

And given the jury pool, I find it difficult to imagine that even one is going to be a platform zealot. Among the many millions of phone users, platform zealots are pretty rare birds. Noisy birds, but rare.

Before I think about public interest, maybe you better explain the logic of the public's interest in protecting Android. Because it's free? Because it's open source? It's just another OS among many others (some of which are also open source, perhaps "opener") that's recently seen a great growth in market share. Who gets to determine what is in the public interest?

Congress can theoretically do away with patents, but let's talk about the Congress in this country, on this planet, in the year 2011. You were saying?

Yes, judges and regulators can apply pressure. And sometimes it works and often it doesn't. Usually a judge does this because he knows his court is being used as a tool to haggle over price. In the case of Apple vs MMI, Samsung, or HTC, Apple wants them to stop manufacturing and importing Android handsets. It's not a disagreement over what the patents are worth that can be satisfied with a cash settlement or a cross licensing deal, unless the defense can come up with some pretty potent ammo.

I don't think it's the case that you think there is a public interest magic wand that can be waved over patent litigation, but you need to explain your theory a bit better, and explain what mechanisms would come into play to bring about the result you are suggesting.

"Cell phones are in the public interest, computers too. Therefore they cannot be shut down. Especially one that 40% of the people use. End of argument. "

Sorry, but there is plenty of choice available, platform/OS-wise, so I'm not buying the argument. Nor do I buy the argument that public interest always wins out over private interest. I don't think you've presented an argument of how Google is going to persuade politicians and regulators that preserving Android in the face of property infringement is in the public interest. Marketshare alone is not going to do it.

Still, if you just want to agree to disagree, that's fine with me. That would indeed end the argument.

“ When you say, ‘others build scrupulously,’ do you mean the other handset makers?”

I mean the firms that build all of Apple's products, firms that Apple works very closely with, but has essentially zero equity interest in. While making those best-in-class devices, they crank out Dell laptops from an adjacent assembly line, or forge (“hammer out”) chips for their own brand using almost-identical designs.

By reports, Apple has far fewer internal walls than any of its competitors, and it also manages to have extremely close working relations — or, at least appears to get great results from — firms outside of 1 Infinite Loop.

I don't dispute one moment that tight integration of design, hardware, software and marketing are important to Apple's success. Observers note that Apple did not attempt to achieve this integration by swallowing operations on anywhere near this scale. Also by contrast, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Asus, Acer: they all have had a stable/stagnant Windows platform to work with, so design/sw/hw integration should be easy, and yet Apple eats their lunch on UltraBooks ®.

Michael Mace had a fine blog in which he confessed total confusion about Google's plans and while I spelled out a rationale in comments there, it is facile and interpolates grandly between the few data points, so I'll emphasize your “suggesting.” But yes, I think that Google cannot keep the set top business in operation as the few customers — the cable cos — trust Google even less than the wireless companies did back when Google was pushing honest network neutrality. This emphasizes that Google CAN change if it suits their needs, and that there are other very interested parties who will affect outcomes, in ways yet to be seen.

As an uninformed SWAG, set-tops are a minority share of employees; a spinout would be pretty easy. Maybe a re-absorption by the old Moto. The bigger issues are (a) assembly techs, who I would think would be a majority of headcount but a minority of payroll; and (b) design/marketing/engineering types. I think the future bodes ill for Motorola's standalone manufacturing biz: already not cost-effective, and not very product-effective in the very situation (integrated design/build of the Xoom) where Apple excels with outside firms.

The designers and hardware guys? Google can find some “good” use for them; I suspect they'll get integrated into a variety of Google efforts and not coalesce again into a cohesive unit.

Designs? Google doesn't care and so needs a stable of competitors to find the best solution by competition. Google seems to rather have two users of $100 phones (at maybe $1 profit to manufactures) who say the phones get the job done at a good price, than one user who pays $600 for a phone that reflects his refinement. In fact, they make twice as much money from the former two and don't risk the hardware arm asserting control or becoming a monopoly disinterested in improvement. That's part of Google's “economics of ubiquity.”

Long-winded reply; sorry.

OK, just located Mobile Opportunity and am diving in. And Foxconn, et al., is what I was referring to as Chinese Maquiladoras, although that might not be an entirely accurate comparison (I've been living in Old Mexico for almost 7 months now, so I'm tending to see things more and more through a Mexican lens).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora

I might be repeating myself or others, but I think the set top business will get spun off as a nod to regulators, especially if there are objections to the deal by cable companies.

I know essentially nothing about these deals, but they all seem arm's-length. Foxconn can keep making Dells as long as they want. If they tie up more than 0.1% of Apple's capital (not just their cash), it would be hugely amazing.

Regards their investment plans, I like the quote, “if you attack the king you cannot fail to kill him.” Apple's recent major product innovations did NOT require a frontal assault on an entrenched monopolist or oligopolist such as the wireless carriers, cable cos, Intel, Microsoft, Google all are. And really, Apple seems to prefer that MO. That's not to say they'll always be able to go that way. That must be what the warchest is for.

Regards industrial design? I presume that all non-commoditized supplier relations everywhere do something like what Apple is purported to do. This is right at the cusp for the question of vertical integration, and Apple seems to think others can diversify their production capacity in case Apple's sales projections are wildly over- or under-optimistic, so in such a volatile industry outsourcing production is almost a requirement. Another reason why the MMI deal is odd, unless it's meant to be a tiny part of the overall Android production, say as reference designs.