Free Software friendly patent pools
Posted Aug 27, 2010 14:59 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: Free Software friendly patent pools
Parent article: A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle
You are advocating for destructive usage of software patents
We seem to have a definition problem here. In my opinion, destructive usage means that functionality is removed from a product or a company shut out of a market. I'm against destructive use by that definition. What's your definition? Apparently one that includes the simple commercialization. Then you don't want to face business realities. If the government gives companies those monopolies called patents, it's obvious they're going to do something with them.
I wonder what your constructive and pragmatic suggestion is. What's wrong with pointing out the much lesser problem? Do you have anything better to propose that can work in light of business and legal realities?
And again, I don't "advocate" that kind of use of patents; I point out what the lesser problem is. That's another definition problem you have.
Apart from that, you keep making the same points I have dismantled, such as claiming I "advocate" that kind of thing, although I addressed that fallacy earlier today.
Concerning the denial you want, I've said that if I ever have to announce anything, I will; since I haven't announced anything, people can draw their conclusions. That's the only answer I've always given in those contexts and I won't depart from it simply for no reason. None of my reasoning for any of the positions I have is a Microsoft kind of position.
OIN and other initiatives that try to help free software against software patents
This is still unspecific in terms of "other initiatives". Would you list them?
I think there are reasons to have serious doubt that the OIN is really about "help[ing] free software against software patents" if you look at its inability to prevent Oracle from suing Gogle and the fact that major players like Amazon, HTC, Salesforce and TomTom pay Microsoft patent royalties. Since OIN doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and since the way it defines the scope of its license agreement (which would be one thing if it were just "their" license but it's also the scope of the cross-license between all licenses, including Oracle and Google) is utterly unfair and unreasonable, the question is appropriate what they're up to. In my opinion, OIN is probably mostly about giving its six owner companies strategic advantages over their FOSS competitors. So it discriminates within FOSS, contrary to helping FOSS.
When looking at the patent-mongering track record of most of OIN's owners (including the biggest patent bully of all, IBM), it's really hard to imagine that they would help anyone, FOSS or whatever, against patents...
to post comments)