[alangpierce]

I don't know what Google's reason is for this patent, but defensive patents are really common these days, and I think just about any big company has lawyers saying "patent everything you can, since you need a big patent portfolio for defensive purposes". Point is, just because Google is filing this patent doesn't mean they intend to stop others from using this approach. A link to a patent application isn't enough context to know.

[ocdtrekkie]

If Google intends to patent defensively, they should immediately pledge on this patent. One thing I find very unfortunate, is while Google claims they're only really intended to use their software patents defensively, they've pledged not to with only a tiny number of their patent library.

One quick change in business strategy could turn Google into the world's largest patent troll.

[unprepare]

Maybe that's their backup plan if the internet run by ads continues its decline

[Grazester]

Continues its decline? I thought that decline what only in a certain metric or ad type

[themartorana]

Maybe HTML in-browser ads, but native, in-flow software ads and demand-based "rewarded" ads basically prop up the entire mobile software (especially gaming) market. There's only growth there, no slowing.

[sangnoir]

> One quick change in business strategy could turn Google into the world's largest patent troll

Is there any big tech company for which this statement does not apply? Or do you hold Google to a higher standard?

[mattnewton]

I think google invites this standard with the mission statements of "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" and "Don't be evil"

[ocdtrekkie]

Most people do hold Google to a higher standard. As such, many people I know would hesitate to even recognize the possibility of Google doing this.

I, on the other hand, consider Google holding a patent not significantly different than Oracle holding a patent.

[fizx]

Twitter.

[jlg23]

> defensive patents are really common these day

I had a discussion about this with an IBM representative 15 years ago at a symposium at Heinrich-Boell-Stiftung in Berlin: IBM's point was that one can always join their patent-pool (of defensive patents) which means you give them a free license to use your patents and you are free to use their "defensive" patents. This is completely broken: You never know which patents become relevant and any new player already lost because one just cannot keep up with a company that can extort a free license from you and then dump a few (hundred) million into development based on that.