Why did Google pay $12.5bn for Motorola Mobile? Search me...

The increasingly fierce battle for intellectual property rights is causing many large corporations to make questionable decisions
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/aug/21/google-motorola-mobile-john-naughton

Google founders Larry Page, left, and Sergey Brin ensured that only a minority of shareholders were given voting rights.

The news named “Why did Google pay $12.5bn for Motorola Mobile? Search me…”was published on the Guardian website. The acquisition between Google and Motorola Mobile may be the most striking news in electronics industry on the past few days. Therefore this news has the characteristic of prominence and timeliness.

What attracted me to read this news was not only the headline written in a question sentence but also the sense of humor. As we all know that Google is the most popular search engine on the internet so the headline demonstrates the ingenious use of the characteristic of Google. Therefore, the headline is not only highlighting the main theme but also causing the interest in reading as well as inspiring reading desire.

The beginning of this news can be regarded as a narrative opening and describes how dinosaurs control the Earth, which is aiming at satirizing the tycoon of IT industry. Furthermore, the writer uses an anecdote talking about another auction conducted by Google which caused a heated debate by commentators. These three paragraphs after the opening introduce the background of this issue amply and reinforce the readability as well as the credibility.

Then, from the fifth paragraph, the process of the acquisition is described with a comparison with MySpace bought by Rupert Murdoch in order to prove how strong the shock is towards the industry. Moreover, the blog of Google’s CEO is utilized as another source to justify the acquisition, which illustrates the acquisition for the reader persuasively from another perspective.

The content of last two paragraphs is the argument by writer himself and this issue is compared with News Corporation again due to the same situation. This, however, seems to be a little bit subjective because of the written tone in second person. It can be admitted that the writer attempts to enhance the point of view. Anyway, this is a pretty good news story with a strong news angle.