So what do the proponents of Oracle's acquisition of Sun think now? [LWN.net]

Google can join OIN and help retard patent attacks if it wants

Posted Aug 13, 2010 13:17 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

You mean the members of the patent pool support each other against patent attacks as they're supposed to, but you think that they should go to court to support Google, which is not a member?

Sorry to say so, but you're not right. Both Oracle and Google are licensees of the OIN, and that license agreement is supposed to create a pool and its licensees should not sue each other over Linux distributions.

There are only six OIN members, and they are really in control, but the non-aggression pact relates to all licensees.

Regarding the differences between members and licensees, I recommend this posting for a starting point.

In my posting of today on Oracle vs. Google, I did point out that many Android-based devices aren't truly open source. I wouldn't call it a "dodgy fork", but at any rate, using patents against FOSS is unacceptable.

Google can join OIN and help retard patent attacks if it wants

Posted Aug 13, 2010 13:45 UTC (Fri) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link]

Right. Google are merely licensees instead of members. They have the resources (money and patents) to make a significant contribution to OIN in order to protect themselves with mutual benefit to the other members.

Why don't Google join as members, i.e. what you call "owners" in order to be able to engage in the retaliatory actions which you appear to disparage on your blog?

Google as OIN licensees get exactly what they licensed: access to the patent pool.

In your haste to rip on Moglen and the OIN (which seems like a conflation anyway) you're ignoring the fact that Google chose to go it on their own and now are suffering one of the consequences of this system. If they were in the OIN they'd probably have access to some patents which could cause difficulties for Oracle.

Google can join OIN and help retard patent attacks if it wants

Posted Aug 13, 2010 13:53 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]

Google are merely licensees instead of members. They have the resources (money and patents) to make a significant contribution to OIN in order to protect themselves with mutual benefit to the other members.
Why don't Google join as members, i.e. what you call "owners" [...]

I don't know whether they could become a member. There are six companies in charge and they haven't admitted any new member in years.

But you're really wrong when you think that only members are supposed to be protected by the OIN. You can read on the OIN's website: Licensee grants license to other current and future licensees [for] [a]ll licensee patents and applications for the Linux System. So it's clear now that the license agreement creates a pool of all "licensee patents". Oracle, which is a licensee, can sue Google, another licensee, although any reasonable definition of "the Linux System" should now include Android, one of the strategically most important Linux distributions.

Members are also licensees; in addition they control those patents that the OIN owns, but the OIN's patents as well as all patents of all licensees are made available under the license agreement to all licensees (not only to members: please recognize that easily verifiable fact).

In your haste to rip on Moglen and the OIN (which seems like a conflation anyway)

I didn't conflate. I discussed separate issues: Moglen advocated the merger and was part of the camp that claimed Oracle was going to be a great owner of Sun's patents. I know that he told that to people personally. Now he's proven wrong on that count. But it's not a conflation to discuss the OIN in the same context only a few days after he gave a speech at LinuxCon in which he promoted the OIN (which in terms of financial backers has significant overlap with his SFLC).