Hi Steve, such a pity you asked so far down the thread. I really enjoyed having a crack at a reply. So much so... I found there were several ways to consider

Hi Steve, such a pity you asked so far down the thread. I really enjoyed having a crack at a reply. So much so... I found there were several ways to consider your question, not all of which were immediately obvious. To capture my thought, well I put up a repo, same handle as here, at github, https://github.com/amygdyl https://github.com/amygdyl , under HN_REPLY, where the context and flow of my thought really needed to bypass the "comment is too long" objection I encountered. (Having done this, I realized just how much I've been discarding in frustration, when editing simply did not bring my reply within the limit, so this may begin a hopefully worthwhile habit.) My partial conclusion went as follows: "[...] the outcomes are ternary: the indemnity is worthless; the indemnity by putative assignment of a defensive patent has some limited use, but you are defending not Microsoft directly, but MS + 3rd party; or "highly dependent on strategic evaluation". I do not think that this contracts provides any straightforward indemnity against adverse action initiated by Microsoft, however. Simply nothing in the context or wording leans towards supporting that interpretation. However, in the event that Microsoft initiated suit claiming infringement of one of the portfolio of 10,000 patents covered by the clauses within this contract, clearly the siutuation created by the contract would become a nullity. So, in dealing with 3rd party risks, the result could be quite open to interpretation, at least in early stage litigation. However, as to your question on face value (and making a number of assumptions) then the answer is - if these assumptions became fact, in particular the tort for infringement cited a patent among the 10,000 portfolio, then, yes, this would constitute effective, but implied, mitigation and defense, which if the relevant clauses were enacted, and defense argued, would create a nullity. How this benefit for customers of Azure actually plays out, if it in fact is ever played out, might never encompass as risky and interesting a scenario as that which I in passing posit. But I believe that in potential, Microsoft might have done a extremely positive, open minded and market generative, act, in offering this standard term. It gets more interesting, if you consider the possibility of two Azure customers, suing for infringement, where Microsoft IP might come "in between" their claims. [...]* I hope that makes some sense to you, but I genuinely felt the complete flow of my argument was worth putting down, would absolutely appreciate your thoughts - john