Hacker News Reader

To my knowledge Google has stated, and not violated that statement, that their patents would be used for defensive purposes only... Do you have knowledge to the contrary?

View on HN

Such statements are not legally binding and thus completely irrelevant in a lawsuit.

Promises on which another party reasonably relies can be legally significant even if not made in a binding contract. See, particularly, the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

But Google didn't make any promises to anyone specifically. They just made a statement they will not actively sue.

How will you justify that you experienced negative consequences because Google decided to defend their own patents, by actively suing.

I guess it is complicated...

If that was truly the case, they would have released all of their patents into the public domain, which would equally protect them.

I think it's more about the patents being used to sue, say, Samsung if Samsung decides to sue Google about something else. Bullets in the gun, if yo will

MAD

Reply on news.ycombinator.com