So Google's tenth anniversary - good for them. I think they have long departed from their moto of "do no evil" however. They have filed for patents on various things (which I should have better commented on at the time of publication) about things like a datacenter on an island (for which their is previous evidence of prior art, be it public or private) , a fee-free system of mobile communications, which the wireless providers here in the states have already implemented, or a variety of other things which are either not "novel", or other companies have already implemented.
I personally don't feel that any of this represnets patentable ideas. Maybe I'll take this space, that being said, to tell you of what I think of patents in general.
Software patents are evil. End all, be all, that's all I have to say on the topic - there's nothing unique about what they have developed.
Instead, where patents should be applied is hardware and pharmaceuticals. I firmly believe that companies like Pfzier have invested millions or billions into the drugs that they market. Intel has invested millions into R&D of the products that they produce. So has AMD. I don't believe that those investments should be rendered useless. Instead, I think that those investments should be rewarded, as does probably any reasonable person.
However, 2+2=4. No human could deny that. However, that's exactly what the people and firms that attempt to acquire software patents represent as original, creative thinking. A whole bunch of hogwash if you me.
While not exactly the concept of 2+2, obvious concepts have certaintly been patented. This MUST st0p.