Google Loses Nortel Auction In Nerdy Style

Written by Frank Hayes
July 5th, 2011

Pity poor Google. The only major technology company with a number for a name spent last week bidding for a set of patents from Nortel, the bankrupt Canadian telecom company. According to Reuters, Google’s only bid that wasn’t unusual was its $900 million stalking-horse bid. Then came $1.902160540 billion (which is a number very close to Brun’s constant, the sum of the reciprocals of all twin primes), followed by $2,614,972,128 (a multiple of the Meissel-Mertens constant, and trust us, you don’t want to hear what that represents), and then pi billion.

Opinions are split over whether Google was being seriously nerdy with its bids or just running up the final price with bids that were part of an elaborate mathematical prank. The oddball bids clearly annoyed the sober Wall Street types closely following the bidding, and in the end it was a coalition of Apple, Microsoft, RIM, Ericsson, EMC and Sony that paid $4.5 billion for the patents after Google dropped out. Too bad—if only Google had bid the first Feigenbaum constant, it might have walked away the winner.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.