So today we’re announcing the Patent Purchase Promotion as an experiment to remove friction from the patent market. From May 8, 2015 through May 22, 2015, we’ll open a streamlined portal for patent holders to tell Google about patents they’re willing to sell at a price they set. As soon as the portal closes, we’ll review all the submissions, and let the submitters know whether we’re interested in buying their patents by June 26, 2015. If we contact you about purchasing your patent, we’ll work through some additional diligence with you and look to close a transaction in short order. We anticipate everyone we transact with getting paid by late August.
Wait.
So instead of selling your patent to a troll, you sell it to Google (while retaining a license to the patent yourself), who can then license it out as it pleases, and, of course, also sue people with it. Are we supposed to believe Google would never abuse its patents? So far, it’s got a pretty good track record when it comes to patent abuse – unlike its major competitors such as Microsoft and Apple – but I would place no faith in this always staying this way.
At least former Electronic Frontier Foundation senior staff attorney Julie Samuels is cautiously optimistic, which is something. She told Ars:
“Google’s patent purchase program is promising to the extent it puts patents that could end up in the hands of trolls into Google’s own patent portfolio,” she said by e-mail. “While it’s frankly troubling that a single entity would own as many patents as Google already does (and presumably will), this is an unfortunate byproduct of a broken patent system and a technology culture that often prioritizes the grant of patents above all else. Google has time and again shown its commitment to clean up the patent system, which is cause for some cautious optimism with regard to its new purchase program.”
Well, something’s better than nothing, I guess.
So you can sell a patent to Google and yet somehow keep it; What happens if an entity to whom you want to license out the paptent is a competitor to Google? Ianal, but this looks like a recipe for conflict.
You keep a licence to use the patent, but not to sublicense it. I think this answers your point, from the FAQ:
sellers will retain a license back to their patent. For you lawyers out there, the license is “irrevocable, nonÂexclusive, nonÂtransferable, nonÂassignable (including by operation of law or otherwise), nonÂsublicensable, worldwide, [and] fully paidÂup.”
I’m not lawyer, of course, but my understanding of this is that you really *don’t* keep it.
Would the other members of the Open Invention Network (*) be benefited?
(*) https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about-us/
https://www.openinventionnetwork.com/community-of-licensees/
So Google is a patent troll now… if you can’t beat em join em!
Also if you have a patent worth protecting at all… you probably already sold it. This is basically Google asking for a free lunch down right scummy is what it is.
no, Google is not a patent troll now, they will become one the moment they will start the first baseless patent lawsuit (or at least threaten to start one)
Hundreds of new patents are issued each day and you do know patents can be resold? You whole comment made so sense at all…
Sounds like buying toxic waste for ecological benefits. But Google have to pledge that they’ll dispose those patents safely. Otherwise it’s not a good idea at all.
Edited 2015-04-28 02:20 UTC