MOVE from Rick Mereki on Vimeo.
The low-key actions of two top US officials have sparked heated debate among China's netizens about the nature of public servants.
A photograph of new US Ambassador to China Gary Locke ordering coffee and carrying his own backpack generated thousands of online comments.
A visit by Vice-President Joe Biden to a small Beijing eatery fuelled debate.
Many praised the informality of the two men's actions, contrasting them with status-conscious Chinese officials.
It was Mr Locke's arrival in China that started the debate.
After being photographed at the airport in Seattle ordering coffee with his young daughter, the new ambassador arrived in Beijing at the weekend.
His family carried their own bags from the airport and were then driven away in a minivan.
Chen Weihua, writing in the China Daily, said that while to most Americans this would not be out of the ordinary, to Chinese people "the scene was so unusual it almost defied belief".
"In China even a township chief, which is not really that high up in the hierarchy, will have a chauffeur and a secretary to carry his bag," he said in an editorial headlined "Backpack makes a good impression".
'Serve the people'The two episodes generated considerable comment on the internet, with the photo from Seattle - taken by a passing businessman - re-posted more than 40,000 times.
The tone of the debate was overwhelmingly in favour of Mr Locke's down-to-earth actions.
"American officials are to serve the people, but Chinese officials are served by the people, that's the difference," said one commentator on Sina.com, in a representative post.
US Vice-President Joe Biden ate noodles at a Beijing restaurant after high-level talks "Even the head of a Chinese village would travel in more style than Locke," another comment on the same site read, adding, in a sarcastic reference to an old government policy: "I advise him to go to the Chinese countryside for two years to learn from officials there."
The debate continued when Mr Biden, who is paying a five-day official visit to China, ate noodles and dumplings at a family-run restaurant after his talks with Vice-President Xi Jinping.
Netizens reported that his bill came to $13 (£8), and compared it with the more lavish meals enjoyed by top leaders.
The debate was not all positive, with some commentators suggesting the move was part of a diplomatic strategy to make Chinese officials look bad.
And others took the opportunity to poke fun at the US.
"If American officials are so frugal, why can't the government control spending and why do they borrow so much?" one netizen asked.
But most netizens appeared in favour of the informality.
"Perhaps it is time for Chinese dignitaries to follow the example of humble Locke," Mr Chen of the China Daily concluded.
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.
While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.
These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.
I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.)
I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering.
Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality.
Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get.
But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate.
My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice.
Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.
A "potentially catastrophic" bomb plot hatched by an expelled high-school student has been thwarted in the US city of Tampa, Florida, say police.
Jared Cano, 17, is accused of planning to plant a device at Freedom High School in north Tampa and detonate it as students returned on Tuesday.
Fuel, shrapnel and plastic tubing, along with timing and fusing devices were found at his home, police said.
The teenager had previously been arrested on several juvenile charges.
Mr Cano, who had been expelled from the school, was hoping to kill or injure more people than the 1999 shooting by two students at Columbine High School in Colorado, police chief June Castor said. That shooting killed 12 students and a teacher.
'Drawings of rooms'Mr Cano was arrested on Tuesday night after an unnamed individual "came forth with information" about the plot, said Ms Castor.
"That's what we need in this community, to have the citizens involved in keeping this community safe," she added.
"And that was a prime example of allowing us to avoid a very serious event yesterday."
In addition to the alleged bomb-making material found in his home, investigators also found drawings of rooms inside the school and statements about his intent to kill people, police said.
The "minute-by-minute" plot targeted specific school staff and any students who were nearby, police said.
Chief of Police Jane Castor: "Material found includes fuel sources and fusing devices"
The St Petersburg Times newspaper reported that when Mr Cano appeared in court on Wednesday he was asked by the judge if he had anything to say.
He began: "The plan wasn't...", but a defence lawyer interrupted and advised him to say no more, reports the newspaper.
He faces charges of threatening to throw, project, place or discharge a destructive device, possession of bomb-making materials and marijuana charges.
Freedom High School principal Chris Farkas told media that Mr Cano had been expelled in April 2010 because of a non-school-related incident.
He said of his former pupil's arrest: "Once I found out and saw the information and saw what was taken from the apartment complex, that was when the reality and the fear set in that this was a real situation."
The teenager has been arrested in the past for burglary, drug possession and weapons offences, according to police.
"We've been very, very familiar with him," Police Maj John Newman said.
Forty years ago a group of students hoping to make a bit of holiday money turned up at a basement in Stanford University, California, for what was to become one of the most notorious experiments in the study of human psychology.
The idea was simple - take a group of volunteers, tell half of them they are prisoners, the other half prison wardens, place them in a makeshift jail and watch what happens.
The Stanford prison experiment was supposed to last two weeks but was ended abruptly just six days later, after a string of mental breakdowns, an outbreak of sadism and a hunger strike.
"The first day they came there it was a little prison set up in a basement with fake cell doors and by the second day it was a real prison created in the minds of each prisoner, each guard and also of the staff," said Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist leading the experiment.
The volunteers had answered an advertisement in a local paper and both physical and psychological tests were done to make sure only the strongest took part.
Despite their uniforms and mirrored sunglasses, the guards struggled to get into character and at first Prof Zimbardo's team thought they might have to abandon the project.
As it turned out, they did not have to wait long.
"After the first day I noticed nothing was happening. It was a bit of a bore, so I made the decision I would take on the persona of a very cruel prison guard," said Dave Eshleman, one of the wardens who took a lead role.
Psychologist Philip Zimbardo and some of the former students who took part recall the experiment
At the same time the prisoners, referred to only by their numbers and treated harshly, rebelled and blockaded themselves inside their cells.
The guards saw this as a challenge to their authority, broke up the demonstration and began to impose their will.
"Suddenly, the whole dynamic changed as they believed they were dealing with dangerous prisoners, and at that point it was no longer an experiment," said Prof Zimbardo.
It began by stripping them naked, putting bags over their heads, making them do press-ups or other exercises and humiliating them.
"The most effective thing they did was simply interrupt sleep, which is a known torture technique," said Clay Ramsey, one of the prisoners.
"What was demanded of me physically was way too much and I also felt that there was really nobody rational at the wheel of this thing so I started refusing food."
Power of situations
He was put in the janitor's cupboard - solitary confinement - and the other prisoners were punished because of his actions. It became a very stressful situation.
Dave Eshleman, who played the role of a prison guard said the experiment rapidly spun out of control "It was rapidly spiralling out of control," said prison guard Mr Eshleman who hid behind his mirrored sunglasses and a southern US accent.
"I kept looking for the limits - at what point would they stop me and say 'No, this is only an experiment and I have had enough', but I don't think I ever reached that point."
Prof Zimbardo recalled a long list of prisoners who had breakdowns and had to leave the experiment. One even developed a psychosomatic all-over body rash.
The lead researcher had also been sucked into the experiment and had lost clarity.
"The experiment was the right thing to do, the wrong thing was to let it go past the second day," he said.
"Once a prisoner broke down we had proved the point - that situations can have a powerful impact - so I didn't end it when I should have."
Prof Zimbardo Psychologist who led the Stanford prison experimentThe experiment was the right thing to do, the wrong thing was to let it go past the second day”
In the end it was a fellow psychologist who intervened.
Prof Zimbardo had been dating Christina Maslach, a former graduate student, and when she saw what was happening in the basement she was visibly shocked, accusing him of cruelty. It snapped him out of the spell.
Prison disturbances in the US drew attention to the Stanford experiment and, all of a sudden, the dramatic results became well known in the US and all over the world.
"The study is the classic demonstration of the power of situations and systems to overwhelm good intentions of participants and transform ordinary, normal young men into sadistic guards or for those playing prisoners to have emotional breakdowns," said Prof Zimbardo.
'Ethically wrong'
The abusive prison guard, Mr Eshleman, also felt he gained something from the experiment.
"I learned that in a particular situation I'm probably capable of doing things I will look back on with some shame later on," he said.
"When I saw the pictures coming from Abu Ghraib in Iraq, it immediately struck me as being very familiar to me and I knew immediately they were probably just very ordinary people and not the bad apples the defence department tried to paint them as.
"I did some horrible things, so if I ever had the chance to repeat the experiment I wouldn't do it."
But prisoner Mr Ramsey felt the experiment should never have taken place as it had no true scientific basis and was ethically wrong.
"The best thing about it, is that it ended early," he said.
"The worst thing is that the author, Zimbardo, has been rewarded with a great deal of attention for 40 years so people are taught an example of very bad science."
But Prof Zimbardo calls this "naive" and argues the work was a very valuable addition to psychology - and its findings were important in understanding why abuse took place at Abu Ghraib.
"It does tell us that human nature is not totally under the control of what we like to think of as free will, but that the majority of us can be seduced into behaving in ways totally atypical of what we believe we are," he said.
~~~~~~~~~
Commentary
What the experiment shows is that if your principles are not rock hard in your inner self, that anyone can become an abusive prison guard, or a helpless, emotionally stricken inmate.
Another great article about Power is written here.
The key thing here is this, we have it innately within us to do terrible things and unless our Morality can stop those processes from occurring, we will unleash the monsters inside of us.
Those who can control themselves, control their future. But to have that control you need a serious reflection on what you believe, and you need to ingrain those Moral principles into your very core.
After the second day of watching the Zimbardo experiment, I would have had everything cancelled immediately. I would never have let it go to the 6th day.
But as pointed out in the article linked above, most people never take that step of stopping injustice and make excuses.
They rationalize torture and allow it to continue:
Never compromise with this level of injustice. Fight a battle within yourself, to keep your conscience clean, and step in when needed.
Scientists are hoping to gain new insights into the mysteries of ageing by sequencing the genome of a 17-year-old girl who has the body and behaviour of a tiny toddler.
Brooke Greenberg is old enough to drive a car and next year will be old enough to vote — but at 16lb in weight and just 30in tall, she is still the size of a one-year-old.
Until recently she had been regarded as a medical oddity but a preliminary study of her DNA has suggested her failure to grow could be linked to defects in the genes that make the rest of humanity grow old.
If confirmed, the research could give scientists a fresh understanding of ageing and even suggest new therapies for diseases linked to old age.
“We think that Brooke’s condition presents us with a unique opportunity to understand the process of ageing,” said Richard Walker, a professor at the University of South Florida School of Medicine, who is leading the research team.
“We think that she has a mutation in the genes that control her ageing and development so that she appears to have been frozen in time.
“If we can compare her genome to the normal version then we might be able to find those genes and see exactly what they do and how to control them.”
Such research will be the focus of a conference at the Royal Society in London this week to be attended by some of the world’s leading age researchers.
It follows a series of scientific breakthroughs showing that the life span of many animals can be dramatically extended by making minute changes in single genes.
The work began with tiny worms known as C elegans, which normally live for only about a fortnight. Researchers have been able to extend their life span by up to 10 weeks by making small changes in certain genes.
Scientists have gone on to discover that mutating the same genes in mice had the same effect.
“Mice are genetically very close to humans,” said Cynthia Kenyon, professor of biochemistry at the University of California, San Francisco, who is a key speaker at the Royal Society.
“The implication is that ageing is controlled by a relatively small number of genes and that we might be able to target these with new therapies that would improve the quality and length of human life.”
The laboratory findings have been supported by research into humans, focusing on families whose members are long-lived. In one recent study Eline Slagboom, professor of molecular epidemiology at Leiden University, Holland, collected data on 30,500 people in 500 long-lived families to find the metabolic and genetic factors that make them special.
“Such people simply age slower than the rest of us,” she said. “Their skin is better, they have less risk of diseases of old age like diabetes, heart disease and hypertension and their ability to metabolise lipids and other nutrients is better. The question is: what is controlling all these different manifestations of slow ageing?
“So far, the evidence suggests that there could be just a few key genes in charge of it all. If we can find out where they are and how they work, it opens the way to new therapies against the diseases of ageing that could work in all of us.”
Walker and other researchers, including Kenyon, believe that finding the cause of Brooke Greenberg’s condition could be one way to pinpoint some of those genes.
Superficially, Brooke, who lives with her parents Howard and Melanie Greenberg and her three sisters in Reisterstown, a Baltimore suburb, is frozen in time. She looks and acts as if she were a small toddler — for 17 years her family has changed her nappies, rocked her to sleep and given her cuddles.
Brooke has shown some development, including crawling, smiling and giggling when tickled but she has never learnt to speak and still has her infant teeth.
But she has also suffered a succession of life-threatening health problems, including strokes, seizures, ulcers and breathing difficulties — almost as if she were growing old despite not growing up.
Howard Greenberg, Brooke's father, said he wanted the genome research carried out in the hope it might help others.
He said: "Brooke is just a wonderful child. She is very pure. She still babbles just like a 6 month old baby but she still communicates and we always know just what she means."
Walker and his colleagues, who are working with Brooke’s parents to ensure she benefits from any research findings, have just published a research paper which suggests that in reality some parts of her body have indeed aged — but slowly and all at different rates.
“Our hypothesis is that she is suffering from damage in the gene or genes that co-ordinate the way the body develops and ages,” he said.
“If we can use her DNA to find that mutant gene then we can test it in laboratory animals to see if we can switch if off and slow down the ageing process at will.
“Just possibly it could give us an opportunity to answer the question of why we are mortal.”
SourceFootage of the 'living fossil' Protoanguilla palau
A new type of eel that inhabits an undersea cave in the Pacific Ocean has been dubbed a "living fossil" because of its primitive features.
It is so distinct, scientists created a new taxonomic family to describe its relationship to other eels.
The US-Palauan-Japanese team say the eel's features suggest it has a long and independent evolutionary history stretching back 200m years.
Details appear in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
The animal used as the basis for the new study was an 18cm-long female, collected by one of the researchers during a dive at a 35m-deep cave in the Republic of Palau.
But the scientists also mention other examples of the new eel species in their research paper.
At first there was much discussion among the researchers about the animal's affinities. But genetic analysis confirmed that the fish was a "true" eel - albeit a primitive one.
"In some features it is more primitive than recent eels, and in others, even more primitive than the oldest known fossil eels, suggesting that it represents a 'living fossil' without a known fossil record," write the scientists.
In order to classify the new animal, the researchers had to create a new family, genus and species, bestowing on the animal the latin name Protoanguilla palau.
The team - including Masaki Miya from Chiba's Natural History Museum in Japan, Jiro Sakaue from the Southern Marine Laboratory in Palau and G David Johnson from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC - drew up a family tree of different eels, showing the relationships between them.
This allowed them to estimate when the ancestors of P. palau split away from other types of eel.
Their results suggest this new family has been evolving independently for the last 200m years, placing their origins in the early Mesozoic era, when dinosaurs were beginning their domination of the planet.
The researchers say the Protoanguilla lineage must have once been more widely distributed, because the undersea ridge where its cave home is located is between 60 and 70 million years old.
Five tobacco companies have sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a new law that would force them to place graphic health warnings on their cigarette packets.
The firms argue the plan violates their constitutional right to free speech, as it requires firms to promote the government's anti-smoking message.
The FDA has not commented on the lawsuit.
The new warnings will be required on cigarette packs from September 2012.
'Depressed, afraid'RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Commonwealth Brands, Liggett Group and Santa Fe Natural Tobacco said they filed their suit against the FDA late on Tuesday in an effort to delay enforcement of the new law.
RJ Reynolds brands include Camel and Winston, while Lorillard brands include Newport and True.
In their 41-page complaint, the five companies say the new labels would illegally force them to make consumers "depressed, discouraged and afraid" to buy their products.
"The government can require warnings which are straightforward and essentially uncontroversial, but they can't require a cigarette pack to serve as a mini-billboard for the government's anti-smoking campaign," Floyd Abrams, a lawyer representing the cigarette makers, said in a statement.
He added that the new labels would violate the companies' free-speech rights under the first amendment to the constitution.
The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires such labels to cover the top half of the front and back sides of cigarette packages and 20% of the printed advertising.
In June, Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the new labels could deter young people from starting to smoke and give adult smokers a new incentive to quit.
Cigarette makers lost a similar suit last year in a US district court in Kentucky when a judge said the FDA could move ahead with forcing the companies to use the new labels, which include images of dead bodies, diseased lungs and rotten teeth.
That ruling is currently pending before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
One of the biggest US tobacco firms, Altria - parent company of Philip Morris and maker of Marlboro cigarettes - has not joined in any of the legal action against the FDA.
More than 220,000 people in the US are expected to be diagnosed with lung cancer in 2011, according to the American Cancer Society.
Tobacco use is estimated to be responsible for 443,000 deaths in the US each year.
Scientists have discovered how cancerous cells can "elbow" their way out of tumours, offering clues for new drugs to prevent cancers spreading.
They say they have identified a protein called JAK which helps cancerous cells generate the force needed to move.
Writing in Cancer Cell, they say the cells contract like muscle to force their way out and around the body.
Cancer Research UK said the study provided fresh understanding of ways to stop cancer spreading.
When cancers spread, a process known as metastasis, they become more difficult to treat, as secondary tumours tend to be more aggressive.
It is thought that 90% of cancer-related deaths occur after metastasis.
JAK attackScientists at the Institute of Cancer Research, who investigated the chemicals involved in cell migration in melanoma - skin cancer - say cancerous cells can move in two ways.
They can "elbow" their way out of a tumour or the tumour itself can form corridors down which the cells can escape.
Lead researcher Professor Chris Marshall said both processes were being controlled by the same chemical.
"There is a common theme of using force, force generated by the same mechanism - the same molecule, called JAK," he said.
JAK is not a new culprit in cancer. It has been linked to leukaemia, so some drugs are already being developed which target the protein.
"Our new study suggests that such drugs may also stop the spread of cancer," Professor Marshall said.
"The test will be when we start to see whether any of these agents will stop the spread. We're thinking of clinical trials in the next few years."
Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information, said: "A huge challenge in successfully treating cancer is stopping it from spreading around the body, and keeping cancer that has already spread at bay.
"Discovering how cancer cells can funnel grooves though tissues, to squeeze away from primary tumours and spread to new sites, gives scientists fresh understanding of ways to stop cancer spread - literally in its tracks."
Warren Buffett has called for Congress to make him and his "mega-rich friends" pay more income tax.
In a piece in the left-leaning New York Times, the billionaire investor and philanthropist said the rich should do more to help plug the deficit.
He called for a tax rise for those earning more than $1m (£600,000), and a higher rate for those on over $10m.
In a rebuttal of arguments made by Republicans, he said tax rises would not hurt investment or jobs in the US.
He told Congress to "stop coddling the super-rich".
"Our leaders have asked for 'shared sacrifice'," he wrote. "But when they did the asking, they spared me."
Challenge to CongressMr Buffett explained that, like many top earners, his income came entirely from investments rather than from employment, which are subject to lower taxes in the US.
He said last year he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4%, less than the 33% to 41% paid by the employees in his office.
He dismissed arguments made by senior Republicans, including House majority leader John Boehner, that taxing higher earners more would damage investment and job creation in the US.
"I have yet to see anyone... shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gains," he said.
He pointed out that the effective tax rate paid by the highest earners was much higher in the 1980s and 1990s than in the last decade, and yet job creation was much higher in the earlier decades.
His proposed tax rises would not affect 99.7% of taxpayers, he claimed, adding that a 2% payroll tax cut passed in December should stay in place to help the poor and middle classes.
However, Mr Buffett also set a challenge for the Democrats who are set to form a special Congressional committee with Republicans to agree $1.5tn in budget savings.
He said "job one for the 12 [committee members] is to pare down some future promises that even a rich American can't fulfil".
While Republicans have been implacably opposed to tax rises, Democrats have been loathe to cut healthcare and social security benefits that some economists claim will become unaffordable as Americans live longer and baby-boomers retire.
Internet giant Google has announced a deal to buy Motorola Mobility for $12.5bn (£7.7bn).
A joint statement said the boards of both companies had unanimously approved the deal, which should be completed by the end of this year, or early in 2012.
Earlier this year, Motorola split into two separate companies.
Mobility develops and manufactures mobile phones, while Motorola Solutions covers wider technologies for corporate customers and governments.
Google is making a high-stakes gamble in the global smartphone wars.
The search engine giant and developer of the Android operating system for mobile phones is gearing up for its confrontation with Apple and (to a lesser extent) Microsoft.
Google has suffered a number of mobile phone setbacks recently, most of them in patent courts. Motorola Mobility holds 24,500 patents, which should allow Google to imitate Apple's strategy of slowing down rivals by taking them to court for alleged patent infringements.
Google's problem is that buying Motorola leaves its other Android partners potentially high and dry. Will they get the same early access to the latest versions of Android? Will Motorola get that little bit extra when it comes to smartphone features?
Google has released statements from three Android partners supporting the deal. They're clearly written with clenched teeth. To handset-makers, Microsoft's new Windows Phone software will suddenly look quite attractive.
And it puts a question mark over Google's new boss Larry Page. Does he have no better use for the company's cash than buying a fickle hardware business? Is Google losing corporate focus?
Shares in Motorola Mobility jumped 57% in early trading in New York to $38.27, still below the offer price of $40 per share. Shares in Google fell slightly.
Meanwhile, Nokia shares jumped more than 10% on news of the deal, with renewed speculation that the Finnish mobile phone company could become a bid target itself.
'New opportunities'The deal would allow Google to "supercharge" its Android operating system, the joint statement said.
Google said it would continue to run Mobility as a separate business.
"Motorola Mobility's total commitment to Android has created a natural fit for our two companies," said Larry Page, Google's chief executive.
Sanjay Jha, his counterpart at Mobility, said: "This transaction offers significant value for [our] stockholders and provides compelling new opportunities for our employees, customers and partners around the world."
The deal is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval.
Motorola was once one of the world's most successful mobile phone manufacturers, but has fallen behind the likes of Apple, Samsung and HTC in recent years.
Many of its handsets already use Google's Android operating system.
