(Incidentally, Google declined to pursue future military contracts after acquiring Boston Dynamics, along with a host of other robotics companies, so presenting that pre-acquisition video after accusing Google of being ”part of the military industrial complex” is bit of a non-sequitor.)
And you so quickly trust one of the biggest corporations in the world to "keep its promise" over following whatever its biggest interest will be in the future?
Google also said it won't deal at all with the military before they bought the robots, and a few months later it was selling them Google Glass...so yeah.
And Google Glass is something anyone barely wants. Imagine Google's robots were so great that it would cause a "revolution" in what we can do with robots. Do you really believe that if Pentagon came knocking at Google's door saying "Here, we want 1 million of these robots for $100,000 a piece". Google would say "Um, no thanks buddy, we already said in public 10 years ago (under a different CEO) that we wouldn't sell to you...but you could pay that $100 billion to Microsoft's robot division if you like. Our shareholders won't mind".
Is that how you imagine it going down? That said, I'm already pissed off because Oculus/Facebook have decided to sell Oculus Rifts to the military to make drone assassinations that much more convenient.
Perhaps the military will want to buy more of Google's tech, but it sounds like Google isn't (currently) planning on building robots for the military.
Who funded it and when is irrelevant to whether it belongs to google.
The jet you're talking about is owned by a private company, H211 LLC, that's owned by Page, Brin, Schmidt et al. It's not a subsidiary of Google, nor does it have any relationship with Google[0].
[0] http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/a-new-fighter-jet-f...
I was arguing "the Boston dynamics robot is not Google technology because darpa funded it" with "it is fair to describe it as Google technology because Google own the technology".
You can draw whatever conclusions you like about the fighter jet for all I care. But if you start saying things like "they bought a fighter jet but they don't own it because someone else paid for the design" then I'll argue about your reasoning.