Feeds

back to article Google shields open source cloud tech from patent trolls

Google has moved to protect developers of data center management software by adding more patents to its Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge. By adding the 79 patents, Google is signalling that it will not prosecute people for making apps that involve these technologies unless they sue Google first, the company said on Thursday. …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Anonymous Coward

Googles stance sounds like blackmail?

1
4
Anonymous Coward

mono is all about "eee", Will look like a trojan

"Microsoft promising not to go after Project Mono" actually this is because they want mono used on linux based systems. It sucks, and these apps Will run so much better on windows, someday when the time is right... See "eee".

2
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Presumably they are trying to be able to claim they achieved at least something with the billions of dollars they burnt on buying Motorola....after loosing every fight with Microsoft, Apple and Nokia...

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Even further legitimatising...

...the broken patent system. They're all buggers.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

'shields'? Don't think so.

No - this is a non assert pledge. It shields only from Google, subject to defining a locus to act and Google being 'reasonable' if acts inconsistently with the pledge, and anyone to whom Google may sell or assign rights.

There is nothing I can see in the pledge to use these patents to countersue someone attacking a developer, open source or otherwise, with their own patents. Indeed if the protagonist also was using these in open source Google might be restricted from defending the developer by this pledge . The termination of the license applies to people suing Google as opposed to say the IBM equivalent which terminates if you sue any open source software and does not appear to terminate if you sue IBM .

Overall the non assert pledge is very good - although I'd like some elements cleaned up and its discriminatory - it only applies to open source rather than say use by implementers of standards more generally and issues like 'special purpose hardware' need definition. It has a few loop holes and control points too (like use of the words 'promise' and country of jurisdiction) as above.

It is not a defensive patent pool like the Open Innovation network that protects Linux.

1
0
Bronze badge
Meh

Too bad...

... they can't shield Android developers from pirates

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.