News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google Patent Purchase Promotion.

Re:Google Patent Purchase Promotion by anc84 on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @09:45AM (#9452263)
This should really come with a waiver from Google for any submitted patent to be never ever require any royalties or fees (whatever the terms are in patent world).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Patent Purchase Promotion by dragonwriter on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @09:56AM (#9452342)
The idea here is to provide a better experience (and equal or better prices) for people who might otherwise sell to trolls. such a term on the transfer would do nothing to enhance the attractiveness of the program to the people Google is looking to do business with (whether or not that's how Google is likely to use the patents), and people who would be motivated to participate by such a term aren't people who otherwise would be likely to sell to trolls, so there is no real reason for such term.

Google might subsequently make such a pledge for particular patents it purchases -- or submit them to reciprocal licensing pools, which such a pledge might conflict with or reduce the utility of -- but that's separate from the purchase terms, and there is no good reason to tie them together.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Patent Purchase Promotion by MCRed on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @10:19AM (#9452515)
Why would google do that?

Do you think they would tolerate for a second if you violated their page rank patent?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Patent Purchase Promotion by mckoss on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @10:29AM (#9452597)
Not that far but:

"As part of our Patent Acquisition Agreement (see section 4.4), sellers will retain a license back to their patent. For you lawyers out there, the license is “irrevocable, non­exclusive, non­transferable, non­assignable (including by operation of law or otherwise), non­sublicensable, worldwide, [and] fully paid­up.”

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Patent Purchase Promotion by derf_ on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @12:50PM (#9453640)
> non­exclusive, non­transferable, non­assignable (including by operation of law or otherwise), non­sublicensable

That does no one any good except the seller. For any seller, this kind of thing is table-stakes (no one wants to sell someone a gun pointed at their head).

But if the seller is specifically concerned about their patent being used offensively on others (which I suspect was the original commenter's concern), then this provision is useless.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google Patent Purchase Promotion by minot on Tuesday April 28, 2015 @02:04PM (#9454155)
> non­exclusive, non­transferable, non­assignable (including by operation of law or otherwise), non­sublicensable

I think I am misunderstanding you. If they give much more, Google might as well just pay one to void their patent instead of assuming ownership.

[ Parent | on HN ]