I don't understand why Google not wanting to team up with MS weakens their argument. If anything, it's quite consistent with it. But one way or another, what ultimately happened is that MS teamed up with Google's competitors to bully them with bullshit patents. That Google may have had a chance to avoid it doesn't make it any less wrong.

The only reason to not team up with Microsoft, et. al, is if google wanted to use the patents against them. If google simply wanted to be immune to claims from the Novell patents, they could have joined the group and saved money (vs. bidding by themselves against the group.)

Further, you make two assertions here: "MS teamed up with Google's competitors to bully them with bullshit patents. "

You haven't shown that MSFT has bullied google, nor that the patents are "bullshit".

If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior art.

You say "If the patents are bogus, they would be easy to dispatch in court with prior art."

this is false. Nothing is ever easy in court, and invalidating patents is especially so-by design. There is a presumption of validity that attaches by law to every issued patent. In layman's terms, that means that the deck is stacked against anyone who tries to invalidate a patent in court.

Further, validity in court is decided in two parts. The first part is when the judge - a 50 year old who did history or poli sci undergrad - "construes" the claims by deciding what they mean. This frequently leads to some marvelous interpretations of terms. At least the judge has a college education and tries to get it right.

Next, the "facts" about how the patent claims apply to the accused technology are determined by a jury. Distressingly often, this jury is in East Texas, where there are two undergraduate degrees and ten people who have ever used the Internet in the 100-person jury pool.

You think I'm kidding. Or exaggerating. I'm not.

I have often thought that I could write a legal thriller with a helping of Dan Brown-style "all the facts and cases discussed in this book are real." people are astounded when it is explained to them.

Joining with Microsoft to become immune from Novell patents is a waste of money when Microsoft can still turn around and sue you for implementing a FAT32 driver.

> If google simply wanted to be immune to claims from the Novell patents, they could have joined the group and saved money (vs. bidding by themselves against the group.)

But what if they wished to grant immunity to Android manufacturers, but the group did not want them to?