Submitted by Canonical have become the first member to sign up to the Open Invention Network’s new associate membership program. The Open Invention Network exists to acquire patents and license them royalty free to entities which, in turn, “agree not to assert their own patents against Linux or Linux-related applications.” Current well-known companies involved with the OIN include Sony, IBM and Novell.
Associate membership program, what does that actually mean? I couldn’t find anything but a vague blurb in the press release about it.
I agree its not very clear but from what i understood the licensee commits to not suing against linux (for patent infringement) and can use OIN patent pool royalty free whilst is more than that (maybe share there patents in the pool or helps actively to defend cases against linux) and there are the founding members.
Its not very clear but seems to me licensee=passive help (by not suing) while associate= active help (not clear maybe by sharing patents or exact details will be tailored for each associate)
Edited 2010-06-25 23:10 UTC
Yeah, I kind of doubt that Ubuntu has too many patents (if any) that they could use to prop up the portfolio of the OIN…
Edited 2010-06-26 08:12 UTC
The OIN doesn’t work like that. Partners join the OIN, and contribute funds, and the OIN then uses those funds and buys defensive patents.
There is another organisation entirely, called the Patent Commons, where members contribute patents they already hold:
http://www.patentcommons.org/
Canonical aren’t involved there, but they can be involved at the OIN.
There is another organisation which is set up to help defend open source software against attack by patent trolls, this one goes by the name of Open Source as Prior Art (OSAPA).
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/osapa
Since Canonical is based on Debian anyway, and Canonical is a relative Jhonny-come-lately, the canonical aren’t really in a position to help there either.
There is AFAIK only one other area where Canonical might be able to help:
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/programs/legal/defense-fund
Not much, since all three of the companies listed in the opening blurb above has sued open-source projects over patent abuse since joining the OIN.
Details, Almafeta?
IBM sued the company behind an open source mainframe emulator recently.
http://www.turbohercules.com/news/permalink/a-statement-from-roger-…
Note, this doesn’t technically contradict the open invention network’s rules, as it is not related to Linux. But it does show the limits of IBM’s friendly attitude towards open source.
IBM didn’t sue Turbohercules over any software of Turbohercules, and Turbohercules sued IBM first. IBM’s complaint against Turbohercules is similar to Apple’s complaint against Pystar.
From the very article you linked, quoting the Turbohercules own CEO:
The trouble is, IBM sells z/OS licenes to customers to allow said customers to run z/OS on IBM hardware. IBM is perfectly entitled to stipulate such conditions, since z/OS is IBM’s software.
So Turbohercules sued IBM for “anti-trust”, so IBM sued Turbohercules for running z/OS outside of the z/OS license terms. This really has very little to do with open source. Given the ruling in Apple vs Pystar, where Pystar were trying to run Apple’s Mac OSX outside of Apple’s licensing terms, wherein Apple won resoundingly, it would seem that Turbohercules don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Turbohercules must respect IBM’s license terms for z/OS, just as anyone else running software must respect the license terms set by the authors of that software, as is the law.
Edited 2010-06-29 05:17 UTC
I see. Now I am informed. I disagree with said law, but I understand now that it has less to do with open source than I thought.
I wondering whether this has to do with WebM and the threats MPEG-LA are making regarding those who are looking to push WebM as an alternative to h264? Hopefully if the OIN become a strong force in the computer world that the destructive nature of patents will be eliminated.
Possibly not. MPEG-LA is a patent pool, where they tried to collect all patents relating to a particular product (in this case, a video codec) in order (they say) to give “certainty” to parties implementing a video codec into their product. The idea is that all patents would be collected into the one pool, all patent owners would agree not to sue anyone who had a license for the patent pool, and all patent owners would get a cut.
MPEG LA “courted” On2 for many years, and On2 stubbornly resisted. On2 toook great pains to avoid MPEG-LA pool technologies, and also to get patents for its own technologies. They were evidently good enough at doing this such that for well over a decade MPEG-LA were never able to bring a lawsuit against On2, even while On2 refused to join the MPEG-LA patent pool.
Google have conducted a patent search on On2’s VP8 codec, and Google say that they are very confident that the technologies within VP8 are clean (either they are covered by an On2 patent, or On2 applied for a patent but it was rejected for reasons of prior art rather than rejected because there was an existing patent).
Having said that, if MPEG-LA suddenly now come up with a patent pool ostensibly covering some technology in VP8, after all these years, then Google will have a very good case to sue MPEG-LA for attempted inteference with Google’s business.
In any event, getting back to the topic, I doubt that OIN has any patent holdings relating to video codecs, given the long-running standoff between On2 and the rest (in MPEG-LA).
Edited 2010-06-28 05:11 UTC
After a little bit of digging, here is some backup on why I believe that this Canonical move into OIN has nothing at all to do with WebM and MPEG-LA:
http://lwn.net/Articles/389145/
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/05/its_a_relief_to…
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/991761/On2-Asks-DO…
Supply the best quality handbags and wallets at factory price!
Welcome to retail and wholesale.
Please visit http://www.rybag.com
to browse our products (Louis Vuitton, Chloe, Chanel, Gucci, Fendi, Christain Dior, Marc Jacobs, Hermes, Balenciaga, Mulberry, Goyard, Kooba, Prada, Thomas Wylde, Loewe, Miu Miu, Jimmy Choo, Coach etc.)
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com“>bolsos
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com“>replica
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-81-watches.html“&g…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-81-watches.html“&g…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-63-Hermes.html“>…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-70-Louis%20Vuit…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-55-Balenciaga.html…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-76-Burberry.html“&…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-85-Valentino.html“…
http://www.replicahandbagszone.com/category-big-54-Chanel.html“>…