Google Buys Motorola Mobility in $12.5B Deal

| News

Google surprised the mobile market Monday morning with the announcement that it is purchasing Motorola Mobility for US$12.5 billion. The deal gives Google a long list of patents it can use to help defend its Android OS platform in court, which the Internet search giant is more interested in than Motorola’s hardware offerings.

Google CEO drove that point home by saying, “Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”

Google buys Motorola. Really.

The recent Nortel patent portfolio purchase that included Apple and Microsoft left Google out in the cold, and also cast the company as anti-competitive since it refused to team up with Microsoft for the purchase. Google was seen as trying to score the portfolio for itself so it could turn around and attack other mobile device makers.

The Motorola deal will give Google more patents to use in its legal games, although the company hasn’t said yet exactly how it intends to do once the purchase has been completed.

Google did say that Motorola will continue to run as an independent company. That decision, however, could give Motorola an advantage in the smartphone market that other Android device makers don’t share since it will have easier access to Google and the Android development team.

Google and Motorola’s deal still faces standard regulatory approval and is expected to be completed in late 2011 or early 2012.

Popular TMO Stories



It also gives Google “whole widget” capability. Sort of. Not sure they can actually leverage it for a higher profit margin on the phone side.


Google once again screws its OEMs without any lubrication and tells them to like it.  Along with providing them a mobile OS, Android, that is beset with IP infringement suits, with some the most commercially restrictive licensing for a mobile OS, Android, in the industry, and a mobile OS, Android, that transforms them into commodity producers of fungible mobile Android devices, Google now purchases an Android OEM, Motorola Mobility, that is a direct competitor to all the other Android device OEMs, thus becoming a direct competitor to its Android licensees.

I can see why Google needed to do this.  It had to take radically measures to stop the fragmentation of Android that into various versions and UIs that makes Android a misery for its users to use.  Google also had to have an option to continue to produce Android devices, if other Android OEMs decided to abandon Android for Windows Phone 7 and/or WebOS, because of further successful IP infringement lawsuits or IP enforcement actions by Apple, Oracle, and/or Microsoft.  Samsung et al., abandoning Android, because they lose a critical IP infringement suit and would have to pay significant licensing fees as a result, is a significant probability.  Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility gives Google one Android OEM that can’t abandon Android.

But for the other Android OEMs Google’s purchase of Motorola Mobility is the ultimate act of treachery:  It is Google walking up behind them and shooting them in the back of the head with a shotgun.  For now, they must compete against their licensor’s Android division, which will operate under none of the licensing restriction that restrict what they can do with Android and which will get all of the latest tech in Android not merely first but as it is being developed.  Motorola Mobility will now be able to at least try to integrate hardware and software as Apple has done so elegantly and successfully with its iOS and OS X devices, while the other Android OEMs will have to continue to offer Android devices that are mismatched with their various hardware.

And this nonsense about Google purchasing Motorola Mobility for the patents is undercut by the fact that Motorola Mobility is already asserting those patents in defense against against Apple and Microsoft.  Yes, Google can now license those patents to the other Android OEMs.  But the issue for them all, as it has been for Motorola Mobility, will now be whether those Motorola Mobility’s patents are sufficient to defend an Android OEM.  I don’t think that speculative possibility makes up for Google’s act of treachery of going into direct competition with its Android licensees. 

And, of course, if acquiring Motorola’s patents is Google’s sole object, Google could shut Motorola Mobility down as an Android OEM, while still licensing Motorola’s patents to the other Android OEMs.  Does that sound like a ridiculous thing to ask Google to do?  Well, it is no more ridiculous than what Google wants the U.S. Government to force Apple’s Rockstar consortium to do with its Nortel patents, either giving them way for free, licensing them to everyone at far less than they are worth, or simply reversing the sale to Rockstar and require that the Nortel patents be open-sourced, which would destroy much of the value of those patents for Nortel’s creditors. 

Will Google even continue to license Android to others, notwithstanding what it says?  Could Google have done any greater act of treachery against its Android OEMs?  How long will the Android OEMs continue to bend over and take it?  Do they enjoy the pain?


“...Google once again screws its OEMs without any lubrication and tells them to like it…”  omg, what a classic first line to start this interesting comment - I can’t stop laughing.


Four immediate thoughts

Along the lines of what Nemo said above, How do you think Dell or HP would have responded if MS had bought a hardware vendor in the late ‘90s and started putting out MS branded computers? I suspect a lot of the current Android vendors are going to look for another option.

Secondly, if they had to buy somebody I’m glad it’s Motorola. I’ve had several Motorola handsets over the years and every one was a piece of junk. (Of course YMMV).

Thirdly, if it hadn’t been obvious before, this retires the “don’t be evil” idea once and for all.

Fourthly, Curiouser and Curiouser. Just when I think I have Mobile-Space figured out it goes all looking-glass.


Google, the Great Purveyor of Democracy and Freedom. Indeed!

So willing to accuse and make excuse.
Enjoined to unite with ?what consortium?
to purchase Nortel patents
but turn such offer down?
Let slip three billion from the tongue,
Outbid and then, cry foul.

This is a company that profess too much and such protest from the serpent tongue!

Oh contemptible creature,
Your soul is blackened times
The stars that count the skies
and crys that protest your darkened soul
To makes thy enterprise
And cry ?Sickness! O so foul?.


^ *Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap…*


Can anyone please explain to me how Google can use Motorola patents to defend their own Android software?


These are emotional times. Where is Batman when the Joker runs amok! Or, is it a comedy of errors with Apple laughing all the way to the bank as Motorola, its demonic Mother and the other Twisted Sisters commence to devour their kind. Has desperate Google the will and skill to survive the onslaught of Apple and the others, aka MicroSoft, HP, RIM, as they get their pad styled OSs in order. This is war and a jolly good time will be had by all. On the other hand, I may be a wee bit impartial.

Is it my Macbook, or Lion or TMO; quote selected text seems to be on the fritz?

Quote: Can anyone please explain to me how Google can use Motorola patents to defend their own Android software?

Google may not be the brightest brick in the pile. We’ll have to see how well it skates on this thin ice.

And dang spell checker and my lazy eye:
This is a company that profess too much and such protest from the serpent tongue!
should have been protests

And Quote: ^ *Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap, clap?*

I wouldn’t wish the clap on anyone other than Google, MOSiX Man.

And look at Google stock compared to Apple, today. Apple up; Google down. I like it very much.


@mhikl - Did you mean ‘...a wee bit partial’?


What the US really needs is more Lawyers and fewer Technical innovators.  In fact, if the US imported as many cheap lawyers as it does technologists, then more regular folks could afford to sue.  I forgot, the US is a Free Market.


Quote: @mhikl - Did you mean ?...a wee bit partial??

Emotions runneth over and mindfulness is on the back burner but, MOXiX Man, you are soooo right.
However, upon ponder, though you are correct in the absolute, and had I been a bit more introspect I would have chosen partial instead, I shall stick with impartial which compounds my partiality, via, the old tongue in cheek. Thanks for pointing this out. (Sir Henry would also have picked this up for me, but alas, he is on holiday.) In my hurray and exuberance I would not have picked it out, at least not until far too late. grin

And Nemo, kudos. Right on. (I would have worked the anal imagery, ad nauseam, though). So much fun.


“Can anyone please explain to me how Google can use Motorola patents to defend their own Android software?”

I would suppose that the wireless IP owned by Motorola has some value in defending Android. These things are beyond the scope of my knowledge; but that is basically what Google is claiming they want.

A more important question is: “Why did Motorola decide to sell it’s Mobility division?” Never would have happened without the legal setbacks and nonsense coming out of Google execs IMHO.

Another important question is probably making the rounds of top management at other Android OEMs. If Motorola decided to sell, what does that mean for our Android business? That question is a valid one even if we leave out the fact they are now competing with Google. This latest news just adds another layer of uncertainty.

So on the odd possibility that Google ends up with the whole widget; where does that leave the years of arguments against Apple’s whole widget model?

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Can anyone please explain to me how Google can use Motorola patents to defend their own Android software?

It’s very simple, and it will play out as follows…

Every significant player in the mobile phone space is infringing on somebody’s patents, Apple included. It is unavoidable because there are so many patents, especially in the software (or business process) realm. Don’t believe Nemo when he tells you that Apple is the most moral and ethical company with regard to intellectual property. Patent infringement in this space is unavoidable for anything much more interesting than “Hello Word”.

Google doesn’t want a legal war, just like they don’t want a whole widget model. Of course, as Apple fans, you’ll all think that Google wants to be Apple. That’s far from reality. Google’s path reflects the genetic makeup of its core, which is different than the genetic makeup of Apple’s core. Google is far more experimental, willing to try and fail 99 times in order to succeed once, whereas everything Apple does is the most wonderful thing ever done or it doesn’t get done. Bottom line is that Google needs space to play. Moto’s patents buy them plenty of space.

When one of Google’s partners gets bullied by Apple or Microsoft, Google can go through its now extensive catalog of patents and effectively lease their use to their partner as retaliation against Apple or Microsoft or any other big mobile player that wants to compete in the courtroom rather than the marketplace. Assuming Apple and Microsoft don’t put their guns away now, Google could probably make back $2B between Sammie and HTC, and all three would be happy for it.

This really was a stroke of genius on Larry Page’s and his team’s part. They got a giant chunk of mobile patents and a viable business unit. They didn’t have to play Apple’s stupid bidding game. Nobody expected it. Even at a 73% premium, the peace they bought was a bargain.


Meh. You’re just a Google fanboy, so you’re obviously biased and nothing you say should therefore be given any credence.

(Wow! That really is an incredibly easy way to totally dismiss someone without actually countering any argument they might make. I guess it works both ways.)


skipaq, so many good questions. I hope this will be address, if not from our learned members, then, or possible in addition, the worthy editors of TMO.

I have another ponder to add to your questions: Could Moto re-enter the mobile world or would it be restricted from doing so” i.e. has Google included some tricky clause to prevent Moto’s re-entry? And if Moto did and could, would it go with Android OS or devise its own?

Quote Nemo: Google did say that Motorola will continue to run as an independent company. That decision, however, could give Motorola(???) an advantage in the smartphone market that other Android device makers don?t share since it will have easier access to Google and the Android development team.

But Google does own this division outright, eh; there is not some twisted mother-daughter symbiosis taking place here? Motorola Mobile as a separate entity from Motorola proper, n’est-ce pas? (I’m not trying to be picky.)

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@MOSiX: The first time Google uses its patents to bully another mobile player, large or small, I will post a video here of me eating a bowl of dog food. You will never see Larry Page announce some new product and then proudly claim that they have filed for a bunch of patents and intend to use them. It’s not how they work. It’s not the advice their corporate counsel is giving them. It’s not what he’s been charged to do. It’s not even remotely how the guy thinks. Google’s relatively open and publicly experimental approach accounts for a good 90% of the value of the company. They know that.


No more worry! He?s back!

I missed Bosco these past many days, for Bosco is the type of guy who likes to sprinkle rays of sunshine about, where ever he goes. What would TMO be without his charm! Why, Ron would be at a loss for something, and all those who have chanced upon the ignore member option wouldn?t notice the difference. mhikl would miss out on some of his best lines and Nemo, bless his heart, would have the time to write his apologias* as Odes in legalese. And life would lumber on . . .

And I resent the notion of Applefan. Some of us are fanatics, I’ll have you know! :(

* British extended definition


The legal protection Google bought is yet to be seen. There is ongoing litigation between Apple and Motorola. I have a wait and see attitude on these matters.

But there is no way to spin this deal than to say Google felt it needed protection. They are the owners of Android and it has been on the market for some time. Good business would have been to see to the IP ownership before exposing your partners. The fact remains that Motorola opted to get out of this so-called viable business. If the end result was certain to go in their favor, this is a most unusual decision.

For that matter, Google was not under a direct legal suit from Apple. This deal does nothing in the case involving Oracle. Why didn’t Samsung or HTC buy Motorola since they are the ones directly involved in suits with Apple?

Time will tell if this ends up being good, bad or neutral for the Android ecosystem. There is no way to miss the underlying forces that brought this sale to fruition. Google says they needed the wireless IP. They are a couple of years late in realizing such a basic need.


Yes, Bosco is correct as always.

Larry Page is Flora, the cutest fairy godmother of Aurora. Wave that wand, Flora!

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

@skipaq: For you to think that Google is a little too late, you have to believe two things: (1) locking in market share doesn’t matter, and (2) Apple will succeed in having HTC or Samsung shut out of various markets on the basis of infringement.

Android is approaching 1/2 the installed smart phone base, with Apple at about 1/4. If it is more expensive or cumbersome for the Android customers to continue to use their apps and data when they upgrade their phones because of Apple legal belligerence, those customers aren’t going to have fond feelings about Apple.

Should Apple get a permanent injunction against HTC in the US, or Samsung in Europe, expect both to lease Moto patents from Google and turn around and do the same thing to Apple in the next year. It is not in Apple’s interest to actually succeed on that front.

Google wants calm waters for its Android ecosystem. That’s how Android transitions from a surging upstart to dominant mobile platform for two decades. That’s how Android becomes the Windows of mobile, with a whole slew of companies dependent upon and contributing to its long term success. That’s why the patents are best for Android when kept in Google’s hands.


Hey, the ostrich is back!! Did you enjoy hiding your head in the sand?

Sad thing is, I have several friends that work for Motorola who have now become mortal enemies!!  But hey, at least I’ll sell my Motorola Mobility stock at a premium!!

Someone did make a comment about why would Motorola sell their Mobility division - back in 2010 Motorola split into two companies, one of which being mobility (comprised of phones and set-top boxes). So, this isn’t really Motorola selling a division - it is Google buying what is now a separate company.

Careful everyone. Don’t scare the ostrich - he may run and hide again!!

Oh, and I was just kidding about the “mortal enemies” comment - I’m not that petty!! But I will probably sell the stock!!


The mind boggles
Or maybe I need a good strong cup of tea.


Bosco, the only problem with your plan for Google is if Apple beats Motorola in the current suits, that will take the steam out of that approach. Further, Motorola’s purchase will not save Google from Oracle, which doesn’t built hardware.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Terrin: Mororola has plenty of patents on networking and video encoding which could be used to retaliate against Oracle.

As I understand, Moto sued Apple to get a declaratory judgement that Moto’s smartphones did not violate specific Apple patents. That’s not excusing Motorola, just recognizing that things are quite knotted up right now.

It is clearly in Google’s interest that the legal skirmishes settle down. I’m not terribly sure that’s in Apple’s interest yet. I am sure that it’s not in Apple’s interest to actually prevail. Pre-emptive retaliation will pretty much become mandatory from all players in all corners.


The first time Google uses its patents to bully another mobile player, large or small, I will post a video here of me eating a bowl of dog food.

I would add this to my tracker, except that even if a headline posts as “Google uses its patents to bully HTC” Bosco will find someway to weasel out of it.




@RonmacGuy: I don’t think it was sand.

Instead of “defending” itself and paying for IP it can use as a club to keep the companies it stole from at bay, it could just pay for the IP it has ripped off.


Ron said, “Bosco will find someway to weasel out of it.”
Par for the course, Ron. Check his wording. Crafty is his game, I’ll give him that much.

FloraMoGoo? geoduck & BurmaYank. Larry Page should have his alias on there somehow.

And so right, jfbii, It is else where that Boscipuss parks the piece that holds his nose and tongue in place.


Dear Bosco et al:  What Google is hoping to do with Motorola Mobility’s (Moto’s) IP is to license it to its Android OEMs so that they can hopefully either show that are not infringing others’ IP because their use of it is licensed, or the more likely use is to sue or counter-sue a party, such as Apple, who is suing them for infringement of its IP.  But I wonder about the viability of that strategy, because Moto has been litigating with Apple and negotiating with Microsoft for sometime now without its patent portfolio seeming to have much effect in deterring either Apple or Microsoft.

Against Apple, I would expect that Moto has already asserted its best patents in its legal battle with Apple, yet Apple doesn’t seem to be the least bit deterred in its aggressive prosecution of Moto for patent infringement.  It makes me wonder just how effective Moto’s patent portfolio has been and will be in defending Moto or any other Android OEM against Apple’s allegations of IP infringement.  Being a lawyer and a decent one, I can’t make the categorical statements that Bosco has made about the strength of Moto patents and how effective they will be in protecting Android OEMs, at least not without being able to review Moto’s entire portfolio of several thousand patents to evaluate whether and how they might be used to defend Android OEMs with licenses or claims or counterclaims of infringement.  That is something that remains to be seen, as Apple and the Android OEMs fight it out in court.  However, Moto’s patents in Moto’s hands hasn’t so far protected it from Apple, which makes me wonder whether Moto’s patents can protect any Android OEMs from Apple’s infringement suits.

The case for deterring Microsoft is even worse, as, I believe, Moto folded against Microsoft, agreeing to license Microsoft’s mobile IP without a fight.  That suggests that Microsoft’s case was overwhelming and that Moto’s patents portfolio could do nothing to defend Moto by counter-suing.

And the case for Oracle is even worse yet.  While Moto’s patent portfolio may contain patents for networking or video encoding, none of those patents seem likely to affect Oracle’s database products, which are designed to run on whatever network and use whatever video encoding technology its customers use.  In other words, Oracle doesn’t practice much in networking IP or video encoding IP in its database products so that it would be liable for infringement.  Perhaps Gooogle has some essential networking or video IP in its database products or in its Sun division’s products, but I doubt it.  And remember that Oracle’s Sun division has just as impressive patent portfolio in networking, and indeed more so, than Moto’s.  So if Google tried to start a fight in networking IP with Oracle, it would most likely find itself trumped by both Sun’s patent portfolio and by the fact that Oracle’s core business, databases, is unaffected by Moto’s patents, which strategically means that Oracle has a lot less to lose from a infringement suit based on Moto’s networking and/or video encoding patents.

Bosco has this fantasy that everyone in mobile computing devices is engaged in patent infringement so that they all can neutralize any infringement lawsuit by threatening to counter-sue.  Well, that just isn’t so.  It can always be the case that some party will spring an unexpected patent on someone that they didn’t discover in their due diligence patent search and which they are infringing on.  That is a possibility.  Yet, aside from Google and its Android OEMs, neither Apple or Microsoft have been afflicted by the legions of infringement lawsuit afflicting Google and its Android OEMs.  And there are reasons for that.  Apple, Oracle, and Microsoft are not facing the quantity and qulaity of infringement lawsuits that Google and its Android OEMs are facing because Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple have invented the core technologies that they use in their products and have duly license the rest, so they are much harder to sue for infringement.  So this nonsense that Bosoc is spotting that everyone infringes so that no one can sue is just that:  Utter Nonsense.  Does this mean that there are no patents existing Moto’s portfolio or in some other portfolio that could be used to defend against Apple, Microsoft, or Oracle?  Of course, it does not.  But it does mean that, because Microsoft, Apple, and Oracle have done things right, either inventing their tech or duly licensing it, it will be difficult to find IP that defends against their respective infringement actions by demonstrating a license or by leveraging any of them with a successful counter-suit.


Bosco: Android is approaching 1/2 the installed smart phone base, with Apple at about 1/4.

Nielsen: As of March 2011, 37% of mobile consumers who owned a smartphone had a device with an Android OS. Apple?s iOS, claimed by 27% of consumers

Nice of you to round Android up and Apple down. Nielsen did report, however, that “recent acquirers” at that point were 50% Android and 25% iOS.

Finally, I do wish people would stop comparing “Apple” to “Android”. You can compare “iOS” to “Android” (in which case you should include iPod touch and iPad devices), or you can compare “Apple” to “HTC” or “Samsung”, etc. You can even compare “Apple” to “Google”, though (prior to the Moto purchase) “Google” hasn’t sold many smart phones.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Since you’re so fond of March, let’s look at comScore numbers starting in March and ending in June. Android share of installed base in a market that continues to grow was up from about 35% in March to over 40% in June. As your Nielsen “recent acquirer” number suggests, when combined with a market that continues to grow quickly, is that Android is approaching 50% installed base. Skate to where the puck is going to be.

BTW, you know precisely what I meant by the comparison.


@Bosco. I don’t accept your premise that a larger market share makes a difference in these legal problems. The fact remains that Google should have made darn sure that core aspects of Android actually were innovated at Google. My views have nothing to do with who wins or loses these legal maneuvers. Whichever way that goes what Google has done is to create uncertainty for their partners. That flat out is not good business.

Market share means squat if there is little or no profit. I’ve owned a business and managed others. Narrow profit margins and uncertainty about Android’s legal position is not a good combination. Do you really think Motorola would have sold out if the profits were there or the future looked full of rose colored bottom line business for the next 20 years?

I don’t know this for sure; but in my opinion (not a prediction) Apple is not sweating a retaliation suit against iOS from Google. They didn’t have to go out and pay 12.5 billion for IP protection. Google didn’t act. They reacted and there has to be a reason for that.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

OK, so the Apple fan view, promulgated by FOSS Patents, is that this creates uncertainty at HTC, Sammie, and others, and that they are all going to jump from an ecosystem that has gone from 0% to almost 50% in a quickly expanding market to one (MS WP7) that is stuck under 5%. FOSS Patents guy makes me miss the predictable stupidity of Dilger and Gruber.

Google’s $12B baby lost around $50M in its last reporting quarter. So call it a break-even business that could be goosed into mild profitability with a little consolidation and elimination of duplicate functions.

Google’s market partners will find out very quickly what Google’s intentions are as this deal gets regulatory scrutiny. Meanwhile, Google is about at the time when it will pick its partner for its next Nexus phone. My money is the field (vs. Motorola). Android has been so disruptive because it is a loose coalition heavily influenced by Google rather than a command-and-control vertical play. Google knows that, and will continue to give every possible indication that it still believes that and will continue to act as if it does.

@skipaq: There is a limited section of the mobile market that will pay Apple’s premium (read: profit margin) when less expensive good enough devices are available. Not every company needs 40% or 30% or 20% or even a 10% margin to achieve comfortable, sustainable profits. In phones, that segment that Apple can suck money out of looks stuck at 25%. Impressive, but that was also how the Mac looked circa 1993.

John Dingler, artist

Because Google makes money from ads., as well as to alleviate all fears that it would now begin to compete in hardware, Google should give away to all who use Android all of the intellectual property it acquired from Motorola.



The problem I have with your speculative arguments is Motorola who is struggling for money would have already asserted claims against Oracle if it had such claims. Moreover, Oracle is going to get a judgement way before Google can assert any of Motorola’s patents against Oracle (giving you the benefit of the doubt that Moto can assert claims against Oracle). The judge in the current case clearly thinks Oracle is in a much better position. It is the same judge you ruled in Apple’s favor against Psystar. I wonder what you predicted in that case. Hence, I don’t think buying Motorola will help Google that much in resolving the matter with Oracle.

Instead, what I see happening is Google will settle with Oracle. The settlement will require a lump sum payment by Google, and a continuing royalty. As a condition of the settlement, Google will give up any claims against Oracle. No lawyer representing Oracle is going to agree to a settlement without that condition, and since Oracle is in the superior position in this lawsuit (e.g. it can likely get an injunction much quicker then Google can) it will get that condition.

Further, against Apple, Motorola is largely asserting FRAND patents. If those are in fact FRAND patents, the most Motorola is going to get is a reasonable licensing payment, which sometimes would amount to nothing (if that is what Moto assesses other licensees). Motorola is trying to do the same thing to Apple (and Microsoft) as Nokia tried unsuccessfully to do to Apple (make it cross license its essential iPhone patents and make Apple pay a huge amount in licensing).

Contrary to your view, I think time will tell if this was a smart move by Google. My view is it was a necessary move by Google. Faced with Microsoft offering to buy Motorola and Motorola threatening to sue other Android licensees, it really was Google’s only move. Google will now be protected from Motorola really making Android unattractive by suing other Android users. Further, it might have bought some leverage in dealing with Apple and Microsoft. I, however, think the amount of leverage will not be as great as you think considering a large amount of Motorola’s patents that would concern Apple and Microsoft are FRAND related. Motorola has to license those patents for a reasonable and undiscriminatory price. Considering the patents largely involve widely adopted technologies like wi-fi and bluetooth, Apple and Microsoft already are already familiar with what they should be paying.


Terrin, stop winding him up!! You will never convince him that his arguments are speculative!! To him, they are truth, and he will never see them as anything but.



Well, it looks like Standard and Poor’s isn’t too keen on this acquisition.  According to the Associated Press

“Standard & Poor’s is saying investors should sell Google’s stock because it believes the search leader’s decision to buy Motorola Mobility increases the risk to the company and its shares.

S&P said Tuesday that while the acquisition would include a patent trove, that might not be enough to keep Google’s Android mobile operating software from encountering intellectual-property issues. It downgraded its rating on Google’s shares to “Sell” from “Buy.”

Further, the ratings service says the transaction will hurt Google’s growth, margins and balance sheet.

S&P cut its price target for Google’s stock by $200 to $500.

Google shares fell along with the overall market Tuesday, slipping $18.23, or 3.3 percent, to finish trading at $539.”

I sent them an email letting them know that Bosco thinks this acquisition is a good idea, so maybe they will recant their statements and upgrade their rating on Google!!


Log in to comment (TMO, Twitter or Facebook) or Register for a TMO account