How would a commitment to not use their patent portfolio offensively prevent them from effectively using it defensively?
For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding, which could be exploited. And a totally nonbinding one could just as easily be given by a patent troll.
> For the commitment to be meaningful at all, it has to be partially binding
A non-binding and less-meaningful commitment would still be something. They could easily start there and they have not.
I don't see what they'd gain from that. Also, could calling your own patents "defensive" be seen as admission that they're bogus?
Edit: Removed a bone-headed hypothetical.
> My understanding is a patent holder must defend their rights, if they are aware of the infringement, at the peril of losing them.
Pretty sure that's just for trademarks.
Agh. Absolutely. Wrong flavor of "intellectual property". Thanks.
And that's why Stallman is so firm that there is no such thing as "intellectual property". As soon as you start using that term, you start believing there is something more general and meaningful to it and start muddying the concepts. But it is just a mirage.