Google Responds to Microsoft's Missile: They're Diverting Attention with a Trick that Failed - MS "Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something....to assert against someone else"

The back and forth between Google and Microsoft continued throughout the day today and is really getting interesting. In a blog post yesterday, Google's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond vents out calling Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others using "bogus" patents to try to kill Android. Drummond went ahead and said that the "Microsoft and Apple […]

The back and forth between Google and Microsoft continued throughout the day today and is really getting interesting. In a blog post yesterday, Google's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond vents out calling Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and others using "bogus" patents to try to kill Android.

Drummond went ahead and said that the "Microsoft and Apple had been getting in bed with other rivals to hurt Google."

Responding to Drummond's vent, two senior officials Brad Smith and Frank Shaw, took to Twitter to effectively pants Google. You see, Microsoft had tried to get Google to partner with them to buy the Novell patents -- Google turned them down. And Microsoft had the email to prove it.

Drummond has now addressed the pantsing incident in an update to his original blog post:

It's not surprising that Microsoft would want to divert attention by pushing a false "gotcha!" while failing to address the substance of the issues we raised.

[…]

If you think about it, it's obvious why we turned down Microsoft's offer. Microsoft's objective has been to keep from Google and Android device-makers any patents that might be used to defend against their attacks. A joint acquisition of the Novell patents that gave all parties a license would have eliminated any protection these patents could offer to Android against attacks from Microsoft and its bidding partners. Making sure that we would be unable to assert these patents to defend Android -- and having us pay for the privilege -- must have seemed like an ingenious strategy to them. We didn't fall for it.

Shaw quickly responded on Twitter saying:

Why? BECAUSE they wanted to buy something that they could use to assert against someone else.

Here are Shaw's Tweets: