Maybe this is just Google's way of seeing who else will follow them and enact "defense-only" patent strategies? Start small and see who else blinks?
Of course, if everyone followed that then no one would sue the trolls would be forced back under the bridge where they belong. We all know that won't happen until it's fiscally debilitating for the trolls, by which I mean companies adopt an "always fight back" strategy or a collaborative defense strategy, used when the trolls sue multiple people at a time (even though they now have to do it on separate dockets, thank you AIA).
Wait...did I spell "debilitating" right?
Anyway, I don't think they'll open up the treaty beyond those patents and here's why:
These guys are a nightmare. Allow me to translate:
"IV has efficiently and effectively identified strong patents covering significant and relevant inventions, purchased those patents, and marketed and licensed them to companies who need them."
"IV has efficiently and effectively taken worthless patents covering completely nebulous ideas, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing, and used them to shake down people who are actually making products."
The problem with Work for Hire is this: you may be prohibited from taking specific lesson plans (in this case) outlined a specific way and using them in another district and/or publishing them online. But once you've learned the process of lesson plan making, you can't exactly UN-learn that. So what's a teacher to do? Never write another lesson plan for another district ever? How can teachers move around and change jobs under that scenario?
Ditto programming. Yeah, you can't take code and use it somewhere else line by line. But once you figure out how to overcome a specific coding hurdle, you may well face that same hurdle at another employer. You're supposed to...what? Pretend you never solved it for the first guy? Not possible, so you reuse what you've learned, if not specific lines of code. There's not a programmer out there who doesn't do this.