|
About Those 882 Novell Patents: This is Where OIN Comes In - Updated |
|
Monday, December 06 2010 @ 10:58 PM EST
|
I have some important news for you. It's about those
882 Novell patents that are being sold to a Microsoft-organized consortium in connection with the sale of Novell to Attachmate. I've been worrying about those patents, and I was wondering what happens to Novell's license to the Open Invention Network after the sale. So I took the time to find out. And it's very good news. Here's how it works. The patents of OIN members and licensees are licensed to each other royalty-free in perpetuity. Even on a sale, the license remains in force for all pre-existing members/licensees. If you are a member/licensee of OIN prior to the closing on the Novell deal, then, you are covered. The proposed closing date is January 23rd, so you still have time to join OIN and get the benefit of the license to those patents. Then, if Microsoft shows up at your door, you can say, "Thanks, but no thanks. I already have a license." So here's what it all adds up to, by my reading: if ever you were thinking of joining the Open Invention Network, this is the sensible time to do it, as long as you get it done before this sale closes and that door shuts with respect to the Novell patents.
[ Update: Here's the license page so you can read the agreement, see who is already a licensee, and find a better contact email, license@openinventionnetwork.com. Here's the Linux Definitions page.]
One can't assume that the Microsoft consortium has evil plans for these patents, but on the other hand, consider who we are talking about. Novell's license to OIN members can't be revoked, even on the sale, so what's the down side? Looking at it the other way, anyone who is not a member or licensee prior to
the sale closing, even if it were to join OIN later, will have to deal with the Microsoft consortium regarding those patents. Let me repeat: if you are an OIN member or licensee *prior to the closing*, you are covered by the Novell license to OIN. I *know*! IANAL, but even I can read these tea leaves. I've learned also that not all of Novell's patents are going to the consortium. The two businesses, Novell and SUSE, retain all relevant patents, not just the UNIX copyrights. So that's the other good news. The bad news is that no one yet knows, that I could find out anyway, what the 882 patents are. So plan for the worst seems to be the idea.
It's free to join OIN, so long as you pledge you won't use your patents against Linux or the ecosystem, and so long as you let other members be protected too. The OIN people can explain it to you in detail, and your lawyer can advise you in your particular situation. But I mean, how hard is that? From OIN's website: Open Invention Network® is refining the intellectual property model so that important patents are openly shared in a collaborative environment. Patents owned by Open Invention Network® are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System. This enables companies to make significant corporate and capital expenditure investments in Linux — helping to fuel economic growth.
Open Invention Network® ensures the openness of the Linux source code, so that programmers, equipment vendors, ISVs and institutions can invest in and use Linux with less worry about intellectual property issues. Its licensees can use the company’s patents to innovate freely. This makes it economically attractive for companies that want to repackage, embed and use Linux to host specialized services or create complementary products. See? You can be a programmer, an equipment vendor, an ISV, or an institution, company or individual.
Also here:Open Invention Network® believes that one of the keys to innovation in the Linux community is the ability to share software code and ideas. Open Invention Network® acquires patents and makes them available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System. This enables companies to make significant corporate and capital expenditure investments in Linux — helping to promote collaboration and fuel economic growth. You won't get a royalty-free offer from Microsoft, y'all, on those same patents after January, I don't think. Capice? You don't have to be an HP or a Dell, although I hope they are thinking about OIN too. You can be a project. Gnome is a member, and so is Mozilla. You don't have to currently own any patents. You can be a company that just uses Linux or develops with it or for it and wants protection from harassment. Think AutoZone. Remember what SCO put them through? Imagine if SCO had had patents. So think seriously about worst-case scenarios, please. You don't want to be the straggler that gets picked off from the group.
Spread the word, please, so everyone knows what is possible and can give it consideration. Don't assume you can't join. There is no USA-only requirement on OIN membership. If you are interested, ask OIN (info@openinventionnetwork.com). That's what I did. No wonder Microsoft's minions have been trash-talking OIN recently. They surely knew this was going to happen for some time. They have lawyers. And they knew about this deal before we did. They likely realize that if you don't know about how OIN works, or imagine it's pointless, you won't sign up in time. So oily, the dark side. Did you read the Telegraph story today, "Dark forces gunning for Google", about Microsoft funding entities to attack Google and IBM in courts, via regulatory complaints, and by contacting journalists? The author has been getting messages:
ICOMP, acting through its secretariat, the public relations firm Burson Marsteller, is still sending unsolicited attacks on Google to journalists, aimed at discrediting the company by agitating the media and advertisers. This column has received a number of unsolicited messages from Burson Marsteller in the past year. Several have been striking in their language, and only the most recent declared ICOMP's financial ties to Microsoft. ...That last message arrived after I had spoken at length to Jack Evans, Microsoft's Director of Public Relations (Legal and Policy) on the telephone about ICOMP. Although ICOMP's reports and website do state that the initiative is "funded by member contributions as well as sponsorship from Microsoft", until last week it was frequently omitting that information from its emails to journalists. Nor does the statement make clear that Microsoft is responsible for the majority of ICOMP's money: Microsoft is ICOMP's sole trustee and underwrites its funding - a fact confirmed by this PDF residing on ICOMP's own website. The document states that Microsoft, as trustee, both selects ICOMP's directors and guarantees its debts.
Earlier this year, we reported that UK search site Foundem, along with Microsoft-owned Ciao.co.uk, had made complaints to the EU about Google. Foundem is a member of ICOMP. So this is how Microsoft spends its money, but the author has some advice for Microsoft:Microsoft has recently begun to rehabilitate its reputation with some impressive software releases. But if it is to completely shake off the image of an evil corporate behemoth, it must stop this sort of lobbying. In the age of scarily thorough online transparency, you just can't get away with rubbish like this any more. Especially if journalists tell. I can tell you, having been on the receiving end myself of such campaigns, it helps if everyone who gets these messages realizes what the game is and reveals it openly.
Anyway, Microsoft is Microsoft. It would be such a nice world if there was no Microsoft, but in the meantime, one must plan and strategize, because they do. I'm greatly relieved to learn that patents licensed to OIN members are rights in perpetuity. It means the community has time to take steps to protect itself from stupid patent lawsuits brought by Microsoft, its consortium, or any other loathsome proxies, and I hope you will think about this carefully and act in your own best interest. Microsoft, it appears, wants to use patents to cause Linux to cost more so it can compete against it better, and it wants you to be a forced Microsoft "partner" if you sell or use Linux. And you know how well it works out when you partner with Microsoft. You end up road kill. Just ask Novell.
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:05 PM EST |
Please summarize in the Title box as in error->correction or
s/error/correction to make it easy to scan to see if an error has already been
mentioned.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- no Microsoft -> no Microsoft anymore - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 05:48 AM EST
- After 20 years.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:47 AM EST
- Corrections Thread - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 04:05 PM EST
- Join? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 11:21 AM EST
- Join? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 05:07 PM EST
- Join? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 05:25 PM EST
- capice -> capisce - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 08:43 AM EST
- capice -> capisci - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 08:56 AM EST
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:06 PM EST |
Please stay off topic here but feel free to post in HTML Formatted mode with
those nicely clickable links.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A Thought about Google, Oracle, and Java - Authored by: cassini2006 on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:33 PM EST
- Leaked U.S. embassy cables suggest China uses access to Microsoft source code for cyber attacks - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 03:57 AM EST
- MPL Beta 1 Released! - Authored by: JimDiGriz on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 06:07 AM EST
- Visualization of Apple vs Motorola patents - Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 07:42 AM EST
- Assange arrested in London - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:57 AM EST
- RIM, Kik and BBM - Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 10:32 AM EST
- US Copyright Group drops 5,000 P2P defendants from cases - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 05:19 PM EST
- "It's organized crime": one P2P defendant speaks out - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 05:23 PM EST
- McNealy claims Sun had 'rights equivalent to ownership' of UNIX in 1994... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 06:26 PM EST
- The United States places technology and innovation at the forefront of its diplomatic and develo - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 07:29 PM EST
- Google Chrome OS - gaggle of flying chairs reported in Redmond - Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 09:50 AM EST
- Canada - Will Supreme Court Restrict Hyperlinks ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 12:14 PM EST
- Wikileaks... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 12:47 PM EST
- Wikileaks... - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Wikileaks... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 03:40 AM EST
- Who pays the piper? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 01:18 PM EST
- Senate removes federal judge in impeachment conviction - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 03:06 PM EST
- Intellectual Ventures: USPTO sells the rope to hang ourselves with - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 06:45 PM EST
- Ex-Intelligence Officers, Others See Plusses in WikiLeaks Disclosures - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 07:19 PM EST
- Cookie Monster - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 01:12 AM EST
- Wikileaks donations host to sue Visa and Mastercard - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 09:35 AM EST
- The first truly honest privacy policy - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 01:31 PM EST
- EFF demands Righthaven pay defense costs - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 02:55 PM EST
- Privacy project uses cryptography to reduce shared info - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Well done google - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 11:13 PM EST
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:09 PM EST |
Pick your News right here. Please type the title of the News Pick article you
are commenting on the Title box and include the link to the article in your
comment for the convenience of readers after the article has scrolled off the
News Picks sidebar.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Facebook redesign upsets some users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 01:18 PM EST
- Race Is On to 'Fingerprint' Phones, PCs - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 05:55 PM EST
- VMware to virtualize Android smartphones for business users - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 01:29 PM EST
- Apple's Steve Wozniak: 'We've lost a lot of control' - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 02:12 PM EST
- Righthaven - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 06:41 PM EST
- If there were a House Mathematics Committee - Authored by: ChrixOne on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 07:19 PM EST
- Android Code-Lines (Private) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 07:59 AM EST
- Chrome OS Notebooks will be Windows-Proof - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 02:37 PM EST
- Salesforce.com Challenges Oracle, Flouts Ellison - Authored by: darrellb on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 04:52 PM EST
- As Predicted, RCT Expands Patentability for Software - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 09:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:12 PM EST |
Find a Comes v Microsoft document, transcribe it with HTML markup.
Post it
here in a comment as Plain Old Text
with the HTML tags to make it easy for
PJ to copy and paste.
The easy way to find a document that needs
transcriptions is on the
Comes v.
Microsoft Exhibits by Number pages.
Scroll down to find one without a
transcription.
Shell script to display how many Comes documents have
not yet had descriptions or transcripts posted
curl -s \
"http://groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=ComesExhN0[1-4]" | \
grep -c '<td></td>'
Shell script to display the numbers of
the next N documents whose
descriptions or transcripts have not yet been posted.
Change the 5 to however many of the next available document numbers you want to
see.
n=5 ; \
curl -s \
"http://groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=ComesExhN0[1-4]" | \
grep -m $n -B 1 '<td></td>' | \
sed -n
's/.*"E\(.*\)"><a.*$/\1/p'
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- COMES 2007 as html - Authored by: gmargo on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 01:04 PM EST
- Embedded graphics? - Authored by: gmargo on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:17 PM EST
- COMES 1999 as html - Authored by: gmargo on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:49 PM EST
- COMES 1998 as html - Authored by: gmargo on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 12:39 PM EST
- COMES 0602, best-attempt - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 01:12 PM EST
- COMES 1139 (Sorting by file size, taking some of the smallest ones) - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 02:47 PM EST
- COMES 1610 - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 02:53 PM EST
- COMES 1610 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 08:27 PM EST
- COMES 1212 - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 02:56 PM EST
- COMES 1212 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 08:28 PM EST
- COMES 1540 ("furthere" is [sic]) - Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 02:59 PM EST
- COMES 1743 - Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 06:40 AM EST
- COMES 1997 as html - Authored by: gmargo on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 11:10 AM EST
- COMES 1998 overlooked? - Authored by: gmargo on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 12:38 PM EST
- COMES 1996 as html - Authored by: gmargo on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 07:16 PM EST
- COMES 1994 as html - Authored by: gmargo on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 09:25 PM EST
- COMES 658 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:29 AM EST
- COMES 1215 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:30 AM EST
- COMES 3197 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:39 AM EST
- COMES 3198 (description of chart) - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:42 AM EST
- COMES 3877 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:45 AM EST
- COMES 5073 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:46 AM EST
- COMES 5098 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:48 AM EST
- COMES 6135 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:50 AM EST
- COMES 7364 (description of diagram) - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:51 AM EST
- COMES 8772 - Just a Java Hello World class source code! - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 12:59 AM EST
- COMES 8822 - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 01:00 AM EST
- COMES 9190 - PJ see note to you at start of comment - Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 10 2010 @ 01:03 AM EST
|
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:27 PM EST |
It just doesn't make sense that inventors must band together to protect
themselves from the patent system. Surely this is not what the founding fathers
had in mind when they put it in the constitution. Since they left it optional,
up to congress to implement or not, maybe they weren't sure patents were such a
great idea. It is time to look at abolishing the patent system before it drains
the last of the life out of the economy.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 04:29 AM EST
- too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:27 AM EST
- too late - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 12:45 PM EST
- It sure seems ridiculus - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Ping, ping, ping... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 07:00 PM EST
- in other words - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 03:32 AM EST
- No - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 05:27 AM EST
|
Authored by: Cypher3c on Monday, December 06 2010 @ 11:31 PM EST |
After seeing this article, I followed PJ's advice and sent an email to OIN about
joining.
Hey, its free, and it protects me from certain patents, so why not?
I have done some development work (licensed GPL v3 :) ), probably nothing that
these patents cover, but you never know...
Any other takers?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 04:26 AM EST |
ala extortion
join or get sued
pay or get sued...
again showing the USA system is flawed.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 04:42 AM EST |
The goose is getting fat.
Is that the sound of chairs
Hurled in Balmers flat.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 04:55 AM EST |
Re: "if you are an OIN member *prior to the closing*, you are
covered by the Novell license to OIN."
But new startups, founded after closing, are screwed. I've
never seen a clearer case of patents being used to protect
incumbents and damage innovation.
- Pete Austin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A necessary concession? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:38 AM EST
- But new startups, founded after closing, are screwed - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 11:19 AM EST
- But new startups, founded after closing, are screwed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 12:28 PM EST
- But new startups, founded after closing, are screwed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 06:17 PM EST
- extortion leglized - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 09:14 PM EST
- But new startups, founded after closing, are screwed - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 20 2010 @ 08:13 AM EST
|
Authored by: old joe on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 10:17 AM EST |
A Wikipedia page has now been started about ICOMP, based on the Telegraph
article and documents on their web site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative_for_a_Competetive_Online_Marketplace
If you feel like adding stuff there make sure you cite a source. Wikipedia
policy in a dispute is to delete anything that isn't supported by references so
stick to the facts. We can get away with saying ICOMP's "sole purpose is to
attack Google" because that can be attributed to the Telegraph which is
still pretty highly respected for some reason.
If you can put the references in Wikiformat that is good but not required -
someone else can come along and do that later.
The Telegraph article mentions previous articles in the Guardian and the NY
Times. Can we track those down?
Something about their activities in other countries could be useful, or their
links to complaints to the EU. Remember that if you can only find a tenuos link
then make that clear in what you add here. e.g.
[[name of firm]] who laid a complaint against Google for [[WP page about the
complaint]] is a member of the ICOMP council.
Every edit you make on WP is tracked so make sure your track record shows you
have been helpful and reasonable. This will make a difference if ever find
yourself in a dispute.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 01:01 PM EST |
"Microsoft has recently begun to rehabilitate its reputation with some
impressive software releases. But if it is to completely shake off the image of
an evil corporate behemoth, it must stop this sort of lobbying. In the age of
scarily thorough online transparency, you just can't get away with rubbish like
this any more."
I don't think that businesses care about M$'s image. M$
could be openly sponsoring genocide and businesses would
still buy their products. As for individuals, most just
get stuck with M$ products because they have no convienent
alternative choices. Bottom line is still like the old
joke: "Q: Where does an 800 lb gorilla sit? A: Any where
it wants."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 01:39 PM EST |
PJ said:The patents of OIN members are licensed to each other
royalty-free in perpetuity.
That's not what main pages on the OIN
website say, at least. As PJ quoted from their website:Patents owned
by Open Invention Network® are available royalty-free to any
company That's not talking about patents owned by members
of OIN; it is talking about patents owned directly by Open Invention
Network LLC. Novell can't sell those because they don't own them. The
patents OIN owns are listed here. There are only
210 of them so it obviously doesn't include the group of 882 that CPTN Holdings
is buying. The list should include the 39 patents that OIN got from Novell,
though. There isn't any reason to worry about the 39 being sold to CPTN Holdings
LLC, because OIN would have to sell them. (I doubt that OIN would even be
allowed to do that, but I didn't check.)
If you look inside the press
releases, you can find things like
this:OIN has amassed a broad portfolio of patents, including
patents held by nominees on its behalf Well, that's different.
That's talking about patents that OIN doesn't actually own. Is there any reason
to assume that Novell's 882 are among these, though?
What PJ says about
the nature of OIN seems to conflict with the website, too. She seems to think
it's some sort of an organization, but according to the website, it's a company.
As the FAQ says:
Open Invention Network® is an incorporated, Limited Liability
Company. It calls it's major stockholders "members" and they are
listed here. PJ
said Gnome and Mozilla were members, but OIN didn't list them. There doesn't
even seem to be a way to join as a member (no membership application, etc.), but
there doesn't seem to be any need to do that. OIN says:
Open Invention Network® acquires patents and makes them available
royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert
its patents against the Linux System. (There is a similar quote in
PJ's article.) That says nothing about needing to become a "member" of anything.
But the press releases are different, again. The same press release quoted from
before says this:OIN licensees, which include founding members and
associate members, benefit from leverage against patent aggression and access to
enabling technologies through OIN's shared intellectual property resources.
It's a shame they don't do a better job than that of
communicating. In any case, I wouldn't assume that the 882 Novell patents would
be covered by any agreement with OIN, unless you could verify it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 01:46 PM EST |
If they can, then perhaps the problem isn't quite as large for non-members as
it might first appear.
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 02:17 PM EST |
I looked at the OIN site, but I don't understand it. While looking, I noticed
that Oracle is a licensee and it made me wonder about the Oracle suit against
Google pertaining to Android.
OIN seems to be geared towards the "Linux Ecosystem". Is Android part
of that? How does one discern where the line is between being in the Linux
Ecosystem and being out of it?
I'm sure that if OIN membership was of any use as a defense for Google, their
attorneys would have already thought of it. However, the thought has made me
curious about how the mechanics of OIN actually work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: BitOBear on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 05:01 PM EST |
So are there OIN memberships for individuals etc?
A lot of these groups are problematic in that they leave out the one man shops
and the "while I am not at work" professionals.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 07:08 PM EST |
Hmmm... well, I admire PJ quite a bit, but I feel I must make a personal comment
here. While I would encourage any individual or company to join and support the
OIN with heartfelt urgency, I'm not quite convinced that PJ has really been
worrying about the Novell patents.
If there's anything I've learned about PJ during my years as a Groklaw member,
it's that she is well aware of the terms of the GPL. And, as PJ has been quite
willing to instruct us here on Groklaw, the terms of the GPL are already
protecting us against any potential Microsoft threats with regard to the
Novell-owned patents. Novell, after all, is a distributor of Linux, and has
received substantial rewards for doing business as an open source company under
the terms of the GPL. In effect, open source software cannot be faulted for
violating these patents unless Novell's own Linux distributions did not utilize
the patents.
This means that the 882 patents are only potentially problematic to a future
publisher if the technology is added to Linux "post sale". Surely, if
it is likely that this will occur, that future Linux will contain technology
from the "882 patents" that has not already been distributed by
Novell, then OIN protection will have value.
Of course, in court it is always useful to have two solid points of law on which
to stand in lieu of one. Nonetheless, I don't think PJ's point here is that she
was really worrying about the "882 patents".
Rather, membership in the OIN carries with it benefits that far exceed the 882
Novell patents, together with responsibilities necessary for participation in
open source collaboration. I'm sure that PJ would agree that this point
outweighs concern over the Novell IP...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cm16 on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 08:38 PM EST |
Not sure if this has been mentioned already - but could those 882 patents be
related to word processing? Perhaps MS has acquired them in preparation for
battle with Oracle.
Perhaps MS is worried that Oracle just acquired a bunch of Java-related patents
and is worried about .NET? WordPerfect era patents might help in attacking
openoffice?
Probably The Document Foundation should sign up with OIN if they haven't
already.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, December 07 2010 @ 10:25 PM EST |
From The Telegraph:
Three years on, it looks like nothing
has changed: ICOMP, acting through its secretariat, the public relations firm
Burson Marsteller, is still sending unsolicited attacks on Google to
journalists, aimed at discrediting the company by agitating the media and
advertisers. . .
Although ICOMP's reports and website do state that the
initiative is "funded by member contributions as well as sponsorship from
Microsoft", until last week it was frequently omitting that information from its
emails to journalists. Nor does the statement make clear that Microsoft is
responsible for the majority of ICOMP's money: Microsoft is ICOMP's sole trustee
and underwrites its funding . . .
Is there any truth to these
stories ICOMP is putting out to journalists against Google, or is it all false?
And if there is false information being given out, could Google go after
ICOMP and/or Microsoft as their chief sponsor, for trade libel or the
like?--- "It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 01:56 AM EST |
Internet Explorer 9 gets new anti-tracking privacy
feature --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, December 08 2010 @ 10:41 AM EST |
Matt Asay leaving Canonical --- RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 01:28 AM EST |
Why is the FSF not an OIN member?!
If you read the OIN member page you
find both KDE and Gnome and other open source household names.
But, why
can't I find the FSF (Free Software Foundation) among the OIN members and
licencees? Is it against some principle to them, or did someone just forgot
to apply?!
If the latter, please make those calls
fast!
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 06:33 AM EST |
The license says:
“Linux System” shall, at any time, have the
meaning set forth, at that time, on www.openinventionnetwork.com.
Bute I cannot find anywhere on the website where the term is
defined. Perhaps someone else can point out where I've missed it. Since I have
no intention of suing anybody over anything, much less patents that I don't
hold, I don't really care, but shouldn't this most important term actually be
defined somewhere?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 09 2010 @ 05:59 PM EST |
I came upon a couple of informative articles by Laura Majerus, OSI
Director
of Legal Affairs and a partner at law firm Fenwick & West, that gave a
good
explanation of the legal basis behind a claim that the GPLv2 provides to
some
degree an implicit patent license.
Patent
Rights and Open Source— Can They Co-exist?
In this article, Ms.
Majerus talks about the patent rights of a software
author or modifier that
distributes their work under a GPLv2 license.
It is
black-letter patent law that once a patent is granted, a patent owner has
the
right to exclude other from making using and selling his patented
invention if
he so chooses. Setting aside any arguments that the Preamble of
the GPL is
somehow not a part of the license, it seems clear that an
author or
modifier who distributes software under the gpl cannot
assert his patent
rights against subsequent users and redistributors of the
GPL’d software. Thus,
there is at least an implied license to those who receive
the GPL’d software in
any patents covered by the software.
The author then goes on to
consider the case where a software author is
operating under a patent license
granted by a third party. She explains that
unless the author has a right to
sublicense the patent license to all
subsequent users, the software may not be
redistributable under the
GPLv2.
Thus, if an author does not
have the right to sublicense or if the sublicense
would require the payment of
royalties, the author must chose between not
including the patented technology
or not releasing the software. Thus,
companies planning to distribute GPL’d
software should consider whether the
software is subject to existing patent
licenses. If so, and if sublicensing rights
cannot be obtained, the patented
technology should not be included in the
GPL’d
distribution.
This actually raise some questions as to whether
the blanket OIN patent
licenses granted only to members is such a case. Members
may enjoy the
protection of patent license grants from OIN other members, but
these rights
cannot be sublicensed to other users who are not
members.
P
otential Defenses of Implied Patent License Under the GPL
In the
second article, the author discusses in more detail some specific
aspects of an
implied patent license granted by the GPLv2. She explains that
there are four
legal doctrines of implied license: legal estoppel, equitable
estoppel,
conduct, and acquiescence. Typically, one of the two estoppel
theories is used
to present a case for an implied license.
For legal
estoppel:
In determining the existence of legal estoppel, a
court considers the scope of
the right granted and whether the patentee’s
actions impact those rights.
Where the remedies sought by the patentee would
not impact what is granted
under the license, there is no reason to imply a
license through legal
estoppel.
Satisfying the legal
estoppel theory also requires showing that the licensor
received valuable
consideration for the license. One possible item of
consideration received
under the GPL is the reciprocity agreement – the
promise by the licensee to
license any further distribution of the program and
any works based on it under
the terms of the GPL.
For equitable
estoppel:
Equitable estoppel uses a very different theory to
arrive at an implied patent
license. This defense involves finding a reasonable
inference by the licensee
based on the licensor’s conduct. Equitable estoppel
requires that the patentee
communicate to the accused infringer in some manner
its intent not to sue,
that the infringer rely on this communication, and that
allowing the patentee
to proceed with its claim would materially prejudice the
alleged infringer. As
with the other implied license doctrines, fairness and
factual details factor
heavily into the finding.
She goes on
to point out one particular limitation on the rights granted
through an implied
license. If the software has been modified to include
patented technology in a
derivative work that was not present in an original
release, the arguments for
an implied license are legally much
weaker.
It is also
possible that a later modified version of the program might actually
embody the
invention of a different patent held by the distributor. This forms
a more
difficult scenario, because the GPL v2.0 puts no inherent limits on
what
modifications can be made to the licensed program. Later derivative
works may
function very differently from the original program that the
company released
and licensed. A modification may embody patents that the
company never intended
to allow to be used freely.
Where a company sues on a patent embodied
in the changes of a derivative
work, the arguments to imply a license may be
less persuasive. In particular,
each theory of implied license requires conduct
by the licensor that indicates
an intention not to enforce the patent. Such
requisite conduct does not seem
present for a patent covering software not
included in the patentee’s GPL
release. Both of the estoppel doctrines have
additional requirements that
make their application to this example
considerably weaker.
In short, the conduct of
releasing software under the GPL, while implying
permission from the patentee
to use this specific software and alter or
improve the software in customary
ways, does not necessarily imply
permission to add to the software other
separate inventions patented by the
patentee. Specifically, given the language
of the current GPLv2.0, it is certain
that a modified version of software that
infringes patents covering other
inventions not released under GPL by the
patentee will not provide
its users
with the same implied license defenses
likely accessible to those who only
practice inventions available in the
original software released under GPL
by
the
patentee.
This leaves open the question of whether mere
distribution of a large
compilation work such as the Linux kernel provides a
broad umbrella of
implied patent
license protection equivalent to a fully
conscious and deliberate release of
specific software authored by a patent
holder under the GPLv2. The case for
that appears to be a much harder one to
make before the courts.
--bystander1313
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|