[ajross]

This is one of those situations where the legal pananoia clips back on itself. Clearly this is not a contract and wouldn't expect to be enforced as one. So the conservative assumption has to be that it carries "little" weight and that Google might change its mind.

Nonetheless, if you imagine the flip side, the legal advice flips too. If you have a company whose employees made a statement to a partner about their intent not to enforce IP rights, you certainly would expect that to be an important bit of evidence in any subsequent trial. It's routine in big companies for employees working with partners and customers to be warned by their legal departments not to make statements like this becuase of the risk involved.

In the real world: I think we have to take this for what it is. It's just a promise, apparently in good faith. Short of legal action by our governments, there aren't any permanent solutions to this problem. This is as good as we're going to get.

[icebraining]

Clearly this is not a contract and wouldn't expect to be enforced as one.

That's not clear at all; according to a court of the Third Circuit, a promise not to sue is the same as a license: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/01/3rd-circuit-covenant-not...

[beejiu]

> Clearly this is not a contract

I'm pretty sure making a pledge of this nature does form a contract. The terms of that contract are available here: http://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/pledge/, which says:

> It is Google’s intent that the Pledge be legally binding, irrevocable (except as otherwise provided under “Defensive Termination” below) and enforceable against Google and entities controlled by Google, and their successors and assigns.

[graeme]

A contract typically requires consideration between two parties. Consideration can be almost purely nominal, but it has to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration