> Google claimed "patents are wrong, hurt innovation" -- and look at the very same people squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio now, when they have some.

How is Google squeezing every last dollar out of their patent portfolio? By defensively protecting themselves against offensive patent suits?

They probably mean Motorola's extremely aggressive behaviour; the two high-profile Motorola suits aren't defensive, in that Motorola sued first. The Apple one was initiated long before the Google acquisition, and is thus nothing much to do with Google (though Google have said they'll continue to look for the frankly insane terms Motorola wants); however, the Microsoft one was initiated during the acquisition process; it'd be normal for Google to have some control over litigation at this point.

Since you're on Hacker News, I believe in your ability to search the web (using Google or otherwise).

> defensively protecting themselves

Not everyone agrees with your point of view, to say the least:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/02/after-apple-microsoft-als... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/eu-opens-two-antitrust...

As both stories note, Google's purchase has not been completed yet. Read harder next time?

That's a red herring. Google could easily have asked them to desist from this policy while the acquisition was closing. Executives at Motorola know who their new boss is going to be and are acting accordingly.

Do you have anything to back that up? (especially the assertion that they "are acting accordingly").

My last look at the agreement[1] the last time this came up did not come across a provision for that sort of thing (especially before it was even approved by the justice department), but it's been a while. In the meantime, Motorola's board certainly can and will act as the want, good ideas be damned.

[1] http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1495569/00011931251122580...

I don't need data to back up a commonly held observation - people are influenced by those who they have to answer to. Are you really disputing that?

As for the idea that they can and will act as they want - that's obviously not true. For example, what if they decided to sue the other Android licensees as they threatened to do before the acquisition?

Do you think the person who decided to do that would have a great future once the acquisition was completed?