> 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.
> 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.
"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.”