Except that's useless. Realistically you'd need a legal patent clause, because right now Google can change its stance on patenting it at any moment, and make your code violate the patent.
Not quite useless. The statement could prevent Google from later enforcing a patent against anyone who'd relied on that statement, via the doctrine of estoppel.
And Google can't quite change their mind "at any moment" – more than one year after the first public offer/description of the technique, under US law, it won't be patentable. So by June 9, 2015, if they haven't patented it by then, they won't be able to.
(It's likely already too late to patent in other jurisdictions, that don't have such a long public-description grace-period.)
I was taught that patents can't acquired on discoveries that have already been made public. If that's the case Google's publication of this method before attempting to patent it makes it unpatentable.
Grace periods are shorter or non-existent outside the US. Publication date is June 9 of last year, so Google has less than 3 months to change their minds and turn-evil to pursue a patent on this technique.
