In the last lecture, Duane Valz mentioned Google's fair practices in terms of intellectual property. I was curious about the specifics, so I found the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge online. I've summarized its provisions below.
Google promises not to attack anyone for using "Free or Open Source Software" or "Pledged Patents," which are Google patents that are usable by other entities. Entities are safe under Google's pledge as long as they agree to the conditions in writing and make subsequent transferees do the same. Additionally, Google reserves the right to "Defensive Termination" if an entity asserts or profits from asserting patents against Google or its affiliates. With "Defensive Termination," Google will act as if the pledge was never extended to the asserting party in the first place. However, if Google mistakenly initiates lawsuits against non-asserting entities, it promises to try to terminate legal proceedings within 60 days.
Full pledge: https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/
Google's Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge seems like a very fair and reasonable way to handle intellectual property, and demonstrates Google's commitment to innovative creation above financial gain. Google could easily turn into the most powerful patent troll ever, hindering both technological and commercial progress for less powerful entities. Its policy, however, stresses a win-win concept that benefits everyone.
As I've written in past posts, innovation has outpaced patent reforms, necessitating some way of upholding intellectual property while preventing excessive aggression. Although it's easy to lose hope in this situation and assume the worst, Google's policy proves that the patent landscape is contingent on more than trolling, enforcement, and regulation. If the culture of intellectual property could be fostered in a way that promotes mutual respect and fairness, gray zones in the patent landscape will be less likely to be exploited.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcX-kUT3XF0
Thank you for looking more into this, as I was wondering about it myself after Duane’s wonderful talk. I learned that entities are safe under Google’s pledge as long as they agree to the conditions in writing and make others after them do the same. I also learned that with “Defensive Termination”, Google can act as if the pledge was never extended to the asserting party in the first place. I am glad that the pledge is very fair and really shows off Google’s commitment to innovative creation over financial gain! This win-win concept is really the way to go!
ReplyDelete