And who's there to stop Google from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from now?
Yes, they have been pretty considerate business up to now. But future is not merely a direct projection of past.
A portfolio of patents is as much an obligation as an asset. You cannot arbitrarily enforce patents only against certain competitors, lest you risk the patent in question being shot down in arbitration or court case.
A portfolio of patents becomes a liability sooner or later, no matter who owns it.
The only one who can stop that is you -- by voting, lobbying or donating money to the EFF or similar organizations that are fighting against software patents.
If enough people did this, we wouldn't have this conversation -- but the truth is, most people accepted the status-quo and/or have other priorities, so after a little bit of hand-waving, life goes back to normal and it's business as usual.
And companies have the obligation to defend themselves -- they can't afford to just bitch-and-moan about this issue. And even companies acting in good-faith (if such a thing exists for companies) -- will choose the path of least resistance (i.e. building a patents portfolio). Otherwise, to make a (bad) analogy, it would be like going to war with "make love" signs.
And who's there to stop whoever buy these patents from abusing the patent pool in 4 years from now? In that situation, I would much rather have google own them on the risk that they might do something evil with it (but probably not if we believe their history), than any of the other companies who already proved they would.
Yes, they have been pretty considerate business up to now. But future is not merely a direct projection of past.
A portfolio of patents is as much an obligation as an asset. You cannot arbitrarily enforce patents only against certain competitors, lest you risk the patent in question being shot down in arbitration or court case.