Hey, Google! Hypocritical much?

Practice what you preach.

That simple adage has long been a staple of every parent's morality toolbox and its timeless advice will continue to last into the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, it seems that Google (NAS: GOOG) has forgotten it.

Exhibit A: Open is better
Just over a year ago, Google announced its intentions to drop support for H.264 in its popular Chrome browser, a video-encoding format used for high-definition video that facilitates 80% of videos, including many on the Web for HTML5 playback. The video codec's share has been rising precipitously as the new industry standard, especially since Adobe (NAS: ADBE) ditched mobile Flash in favor of HTML5.


Source: MeFeedia.com.

H.264 has the backing of heavyweightsMicrosoft (NAS: MSFT) and Apple (NAS: AAPL) , among many others. Mr. Softy built it into Internet Explorer 9, and Cupertino officially adopted the standard in light of its famous Flash embargo, using it in QuickTime, iTunes, and on its iDevices.

Google's opposition was predicated on its view that H.264 is not an open standard, since it must be licensed from standards body MPEG-LA, even though the organization had already announced that the standard would be royalty-free until the end of time, but only when the content was free to end users (think YouTube). Commercial uses like Blu-Ray discs or paid streaming services aren't so lucky. The license includes access to an entire pool of patents that contribute to the standard.

The search giant contended that Microsoft and Apple were pushing H.264 in order to bring in dollars from it since they are significant contributors to its pool of IP. Apple's contributions are actually relatively minor and Microsoft says it breaks even with related royalties.

Exhibit B: "When patents attack Android"
Shortly before Google's announcement to acquire Motorola Mobility (NYS: MMI) , Big G's Chief Legal Officer David Drummond described patent offensives in response to the auctioning of IP from Novell and Nortel, whose consortium of bidders were familiar names like Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and Google itself, among others:

A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a "tax" for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

Source: Official Google Blog, Aug. 3, 2011.

Microsoft had already launched its Android licensing campaign, starting its victories with HTC in Apr. 2010 and steadily growing its list, recently welcoming LG Electronics and now milking royalties from over 70% of Android smartphones sold domestically.

Drummond concluded his initial words with: "We're also looking at other ways to reduce the anti-competitive threats against Android by strengthening our own patent portfolio." Then, less than two weeks later...

Exhibit C: Motorola vs. Apple
Enter Moto. Following a German court win, it was able to temporarily win an online sales injunction against Apple after the Mac maker was found guilty of infringing on an industry-standard patent related to 3G/UMTS wireless technology, reminding us of why Google wants it in the first place, while Apple called it an "old pager patent."

Apple was able to get the block lifted since it claims Motorola isn't playing fair game with its patent, which is covered by FRAND, or fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, terms. FRAND terms require holders of essential patents to license them at reasonable terms for the sake of competition.

Motorola's ransom amount? It "demanded" 2.25% of select iPhone and iPad sales. That's an absurdly high royalty rate, and just for perspective would have totaled almost $1.4 billion over the past four quarters if applied to all iPhone revenue, although it's not clear which specific 3G-capable devices are included or if Motorola is asking for retroactive payments.

Apple is now asking the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) for clarity on what constitutes fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, since lack of transparency in the industry regarding royalty rates makes it difficult to gauge fairness.

Exhibit D: Motorola vs. Microsoft
We're still in Germany, but now we're moving to a different court case involving Motorola and Microsoft this time. Remember that H.264 patent pool? Well, Motorola is included in there and claims Mr. Softy is infringing on two of its H.264-related patent families that are essential to the codec standard.

The products in question include Windows 7, IE9, Windows Media Player, and the Xbox 360. Motorola is similarly required to license these patents on FRAND terms, so guess what cut it wants on those sales: Again with the 2.25%. FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller estimates that what Motorola is demanding for just one of its H.264-related patents is over 70 times greater than what it costs to license the entire patent pool.

What does FRAND stand for again? Fearlessly Ransoming Another's Notable Devices?

Exhibit E: The status quo
Motorola's actions are its own, but Google is reportedly backing its would-be subsidiary's patent strategy. According to Bloomberg, it has told the ETSI that it plans to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing, as it tries to clear European regulatory hurdles for the acquisition.

A Google spokeswoman said that Motorola's patent-licensing strategy won't be affected by the deal, and that Google will continue to offer FRAND terms for Motorola's essential patents, which I'm assuming refers to my own FRAND acronym above.

Verdict: Hypocrisy
We started with Google preaching for open standards, like its own WebM video codec, and condemning H.264 because of its associated licensing and royalties. They publicly decried the use of patents to extract royalty dollars from gadget makers "instead of competing by building new features or devices."

Then, in practice, it's trying to acquire a company that is shamelessly doing exactly what it just denounced, with one case even tying back to the royalty-bearing standard (which Chrome still supports) that it was against in the first place! Further exemplifying its hypocrisy, Google has Motorola's back with its patent strategy.

I understand "fighting fire with fire," but I don't think that's a saying that a fireman would take literally. I may not be a scientist, but I'm fairly certain that if you actually tried it, you'd just end up with more fire.

The patent warfare continues to rage on with no signs of letting up. If you're looking for a way to play the mobile revolution that's relatively safer from all the patent warfare topside, then you're in luck. The Motley Fool has just released a new special free report on "3 Hidden Winners of the iPhone, iPad, and Android Revolution." In it, you'll find the names of three component suppliers that are quietly cashing in from the inside by providing the guts that nearly all mobile gadgets depend on. Check out the 100% free report now.

At the time thisarticle was published Fool contributorEvan Niuowns shares of Apple, but he holds no other position in any company mentioned.Click hereto see his holdings and a short bio. The Motley Fool owns shares of Google, Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple.Motley Fool newsletter serviceshave recommended buying shares of Adobe Systems, Microsoft, Apple, and Google; creating a bull call spread position in Microsoft; creating a bull call spread position in Apple; and creating a diagonal call position in Adobe Systems. Try any of our Foolish newsletter servicesfree for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe thatconsidering a diverse range of insightsmakes us better investors. The Motley Fool has adisclosure policy.

Copyright © 1995 - 2012 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.