Slashdot Mirror

It DOES cover thousands of packages. I don't know the exact number, but maybe 20,000 or so software projects are included.

I could write a few lines of code implementing virtually any patent in the world and open source it. Therefore, abandoning all patents implemented in ANY open source project is effectively equalivent to "abandon all patents". If that's what you mean, that's a simpler way to say it.

That's essentially the problem with GPLv3, by the way. It circuitously requires giving up patents in a way that isn't obvious on first reading. That's one reason many projects stick with GPLv2.

The list of covered projects can be found here:

https://www.openinventionnetwo...

It's essentially everything included in any major Linux release.

Perhaps it is because as they continue to transition towards selling subscriptions to their software and the like, it doesn't hurt them to join, especially if it means that they get free use of all of the IBM patents that might be useful in expanding into other service areas without having to worry about litigation. Perhaps these companies are waking up to the fact that the billion dollar lawsuits over technology patents drag on for years, often to a point where the technology isn't even relevant and that the only people who actually get anything after the smoke clears are the lawyers. Those are two easy guesses, but not necessarily good.

After doing some additional reading, I'm not even sure if the summary is correct. If you look at the OIN website it just talks about Linux. The do have a list of all of their owned patents which does include some that were developed by Microsoft. Perhaps they tossed a few out there as a show of goodwill, but I'm not certain that this gives every member royalty-free licenses to all of Microsoft's (or other member companies) patents.

Perhaps it is because as they continue to transition towards selling subscriptions to their software and the like, it doesn't hurt them to join, especially if it means that they get free use of all of the IBM patents that might be useful in expanding into other service areas without having to worry about litigation. Perhaps these companies are waking up to the fact that the billion dollar lawsuits over technology patents drag on for years, often to a point where the technology isn't even relevant and that the only people who actually get anything after the smoke clears are the lawyers. Those are two easy guesses, but not necessarily good.

After doing some additional reading, I'm not even sure if the summary is correct. If you look at the OIN website it just talks about Linux. The do have a list of all of their owned patents which does include some that were developed by Microsoft. Perhaps they tossed a few out there as a show of goodwill, but I'm not certain that this gives every member royalty-free licenses to all of Microsoft's (or other member companies) patents.

Companies such as Blackboard (AKA Microsoft) may be competitors in this arena. So I have a suggestion:

Either convey the patent to the Open Invention Network.

Or create some videos that demonstrate the absurdity of patents such as "Systems and Methods for Split Testing Educational Videos". Something that even octogenarian, computer illiterate, Supreme Court Justices can understand.

Well, who is currently in court with Microsoft about these patents ?:
Samsung
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

Who is not on the OIN-list ?:
Samsung.
http://www.openinventionnetwor...

I do see HTC, but also no Huawei, ZTE, Acer, Viewsonic, Quanta or Compal *

I also see Google (thus Motorola ?), but I don't think Microsoft has a deal with them.

* they have a list here:
http://www.dailytech.com/Of+La...

The article seems incomplete without at least mentioning the Open Invention Network.

Sooo I see a few things in the license that raise questions for me. IANAL, but here's my short list:

1) "Linux System" and "Linux Environment Components" are both poorly defined. In the definitions section it states that a Linux System is as defined on the website, but I could find no further definition when I looked (albeit quickly) around the links from the front page. Does it mean the kernel only (which is actually "Linux")? Does it mean userspace? What if my application is cross platform (Linux, BSD, etc), or is GPL and someone makes it cross platform?

2) The "exchange of value" for a contract seems to be based on "You get all of our patents, we get all of yours". What if I have 0 patents, and never plan to patent anything? Could I be held to have not held up my end of the bargin and be undeserving of the patent protection?

3) Limitation Elections are not transparent. Oracle signed on, but exercised a limitation election (as has Geeknet, based on http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php). Which patents were excluded? If I sign on, how can I know which patents are explicitly not licensed to me via the OIN agreement?

Notice the infinite malleability of what a "linux system" is, and that it depends solely upon what OIN wants to say. So the rest of the licensing agreement contract has fixed values, but the definition of what shall constitute a Linux system is left to be freely redefined and pre-agreed to be bound to the definition of what the OIN says the definition is. Add "kludge" or "kick-in-the-ass" to the end of the so called open invention network OIN to get a load of their pigginess: OINK. No thanks. There's something definitely shady going on here.

Copyrights and trade secrets protected the software industry just fine before the USPTO opened the flood gates on software patents in the early 90's. They should stick to the original intent of the constitution, and protect the free flow of ideas by banning patents on mathematical algorithms (which includes software, IMO). They should not overturn the patents they've granted - that would harm the companies that filed them - but going forward, patents should cover something more than what can be executed in any mainstream computer language. If I can violate your patent simply by writing C code, it should not be patentable.

Software patents have resulted in:
The Open Invention Network
Peer to Patent
Oracle suing Google over Java
37 Android related patent suits
Nearly killing RIM
Linux patent suits ...

I'm afraid we're at the point where the anti-software-patent people warned we'd be. Small companies live in terror of being sued over any software they write. Big companies waste billions of dollars in court. Coders like me intentionally "code dumb", to avoid accidentally using a patented software idea. It's a terrible waste, and it makes me very sad to see America throwing away it's software innovation lead in this way. Thank God software patents weren't around when we wrote so much of the software that still powers the world. If they were, we'd all still be renting time on IBM mainframes. Just imagine a world where Donald Knuth patented all his ideas.

Such a thing already exists for Linux development companies.

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about.php

Suppose some entity puts all of their software patents into a pool.

You have just described the open invention network:

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/

Google and Sony are already part of the patent pool at the Open Invention Network - the patent pool set up to defend linux. So are other heavyweights such as IBM and HP.

Adding Motorola's patents, many of which are specific to mobile, will protect the core of Android. This is Apple's worst nightmare, since it means that now the shoe is on the other foot - the Android makers have at least as much, if not more, ammo in any patent war, and Android, already with 48% market share, is going to have what amounts to a name-brand reference implementer.

The other Android manufacturers will ultimately see this as Google saying "We're in this for the long haul, and we'll spend whatever it takes to defend Android, and coincidentally, you."

Bonus question: Since Moto will continue to operate as a separate business, will Google buy RIM at some point? After all, the company has a product with some desirable features, and a boatload of patents in wireless and security. Imagine a world where all Android devices can offer optional Blackberry-style message security. Now imagine all Apple and WP7 phones NOT having it. How many people would pay a premium (offering better margins to both the manufacturers and the telcos) for the superior Android product? They have enough cash on hand to do both deals, even if they offer a 50% premium for RIM.

WRT antitrust concerns, GOOG could argue that just as MMI will be run independently, they will do the same for RIMM. Also, that they continue to offer the Android system to everyone, including any newcomer, so it will continue to increase, not decrease, competition in the smartphone, tablet, and small-form-factor laptop spaces.

if you think having an ex hedge fund manager own the OIN has something to do with why you wouldn't trust it, I'd like to remind you of a: the list of licensees (which is huge - google and redhat for two significant names -microsoft and apple quite clearly absent) and B: If you had a fucking clue you'd have signed up with OIN last year to prevent SCO/MS/Attachmate threats in the first place.

From groklaw:

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.

So yeah, keep saying that a hedge fund manager is somehow untrustworthy, and I'll stick with being in the clear to give the finger to MS and SCO while they spread all the FUD they want.

First not only am I not your lawyer, I'm not a lawyer at all, so this isn't legal advice; if you have questions like the above you probably want to go talk to the FSF or SFLC who are quite likely to be willing to arrange cheap legal advice.

What sakdoctor said is probably true that we need people in the free software community who actively patent. Having patented it however, the licensing not be like the GPL. You also don't want to get involved in people like the Open Patent Alliance. They seem to be a standard industry "patent pool" and as such their members will be looking for money from WIMAX producers, which of course basically rules out FOSS where it is impossible to control the number of copies out there. The most important thing to understand is that where in copyrights, copying is relatively cheaply and efficiently proven and so people respect them by default, the standard approach to patents is to ignore them.

In licensing, basically a level of aggression is needed otherwise your patent won't achieve anything and won't be worth the money. Basically, you have to be willing to sue companies that are willing to get involved in suing open source companies. That includes any company which has ever owned a patent involved in suing open source companies. If you don't do this then people like Microsoft will just sell their patents on to patent trolls whilst keeping a license for themselves and making sure the trolls know which targets to prioritize in order to get their next fix of patents. Probably the best way to do that is to transfer the patents to a well funded and very aggressive non practicing entity together with an agreement that a) they can't sell the patents on except with a similar agreement and b) they will not sue companies which agree never to sue FOSS software companies or to sell on patents except with a similar agreement.

The one organisation that I know of which comes even close is the Open Invention Network but they have completely failed to sue Microsoft during their recent patent attacks and as such I would say they seem to be pretty ineffective.

Finally, there's a moral question here. Some people believe that if you don't believe in a law you shouldn't benefit from it and so you shouldn't sue over patents. I wouldn't want to get money from patent lawsuit, but I strongly have the opposite belief. As long as patents only cause pain for FOSS people, the corporates and the politicians they buy will continue to support them. The correct way to get rid of the patent system is to maximise the pain for companies like Microsoft who are abusing the system themselves.

I don't get why open innovation network wasn't mentioned? That's pretty much defensive patent licensing for free, and clearly defined.

If that was true, then no-one would be members of Open Invention Network or Open Patent Alliance, but both have several large companies that have joined and/or contributed patents.

Furthermore, Microsoft is a member of MPEG-LA and their VC-1 format is part of the Blu-Ray standard, but they still loose out on the deal, as they have to pay more in MPEG-LA licenses for windows than they get from their patents. They gain nothing by having MPEG-LA start charging license fees for WebM.

The fact is that no-one can do anything on their own anymore - they need to license patents from others, even if they invented the device independently and have a ton of patents their own. People that actually want to do things with patents therefore do benefit from no-money exchanged cross-licensing.

And how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there, to make it easier for them to win IP lawsuits?

Most patent portfolios come with irrevocable commitments to allow any patent they submit to the portfolio to be used freely forever.
This one apparently DOES NOT have such a commitment.

From their Agreement:

1.1 Subject to Section 1.2(b), OIN, grants to You and Your Subsidiaries a royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, non-transferable license under OIN Patents to make, have made, use, import, and Distribute any products or services. In addition to the foregoing and without limitation thereof, with respect only to the Linux System, the license granted herein includes the right to engage in activities that in the absence of this Agreement would constitute inducement to infringe or contributory infringement (or infringement under any other analogous legal doctrine in the applicable jurisdiction).

Sounds all laudable and such, BUT:

There are still some worrisome features of this organization, such as the fact that the FSF is NOT part of it, and they are really granting cross licensing only to other members. Further, they have built a pretty massive escape clause into their License Agreement in Section 2.

A careful read of their cross license agreement suggest this could turn ugly after enough patents are in the system which also find their way into Linux.

The FAQ is here: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_faq.php
The membership is here: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php (just about every Distro you ever heard of is represented).

And how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there, to make it easier for them to win IP lawsuits?

Most patent portfolios come with irrevocable commitments to allow any patent they submit to the portfolio to be used freely forever.
This one apparently DOES NOT have such a commitment.

From their Agreement:

1.1 Subject to Section 1.2(b), OIN, grants to You and Your Subsidiaries a royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, non-transferable license under OIN Patents to make, have made, use, import, and Distribute any products or services. In addition to the foregoing and without limitation thereof, with respect only to the Linux System, the license granted herein includes the right to engage in activities that in the absence of this Agreement would constitute inducement to infringe or contributory infringement (or infringement under any other analogous legal doctrine in the applicable jurisdiction).

Sounds all laudable and such, BUT:

There are still some worrisome features of this organization, such as the fact that the FSF is NOT part of it, and they are really granting cross licensing only to other members. Further, they have built a pretty massive escape clause into their License Agreement in Section 2.

A careful read of their cross license agreement suggest this could turn ugly after enough patents are in the system which also find their way into Linux.

The FAQ is here: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_faq.php
The membership is here: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php (just about every Distro you ever heard of is represented).

And how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there, to make it easier for them to win IP lawsuits?

Most patent portfolios come with irrevocable commitments to allow any patent they submit to the portfolio to be used freely forever.
This one apparently DOES NOT have such a commitment.

From their Agreement:

1.1 Subject to Section 1.2(b), OIN, grants to You and Your Subsidiaries a royalty-free, worldwide, nonexclusive, non-transferable license under OIN Patents to make, have made, use, import, and Distribute any products or services. In addition to the foregoing and without limitation thereof, with respect only to the Linux System, the license granted herein includes the right to engage in activities that in the absence of this Agreement would constitute inducement to infringe or contributory infringement (or infringement under any other analogous legal doctrine in the applicable jurisdiction).

Sounds all laudable and such, BUT:

There are still some worrisome features of this organization, such as the fact that the FSF is NOT part of it, and they are really granting cross licensing only to other members. Further, they have built a pretty massive escape clause into their License Agreement in Section 2.

A careful read of their cross license agreement suggest this could turn ugly after enough patents are in the system which also find their way into Linux.

The FAQ is here: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_faq.php
The membership is here: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php (just about every Distro you ever heard of is represented).

how do we know that they're not simply joining up to see what others have there[?]

Patents, by their very nature, aren't secret, and OIN makes no secret of which patents are in their pool (it would rather defeat the purpose if they did), so I can't imagine what it is that you think they're going to learn by joining.

Promises are worth exactly as much as the paper they aren't written on.

Well, first of all, these promises are written on paper, and second of all, if a promise is made publicly enough, it doesn't matter whether it's written on paper, and as for your final fear about companies dissolving and assets being sold, the doctrines of promissory estoppel and laches would prevent any direct harm from such an event. A new asset owner couldn't just suddenly repudiate the promises made by the previous owner; they would have to give proper notice and allow those affected by the previous promise time to deal with the changing circumstances, at the very least.

Isn't that what the OIN is for?
PJ wrote about that a few weeks ago as well.

Android is a key Linux distribution and Dalvik is an essential component of it. Also, someone else commented somewhere else on this thread that the Linux kernel itself is only a small percentage of all code of a Linux configuration.

OIN doesn't say it protects only the Linux kernel. It protects "the Linux System" according to its own definition. That definition is listed here. It's a long list of program files, and for an example, it includes Apache, which actually is available for Windows, too (unlike Dalvik), and which certainly isn't an operating system module.

That's what my criticism of the OIN is not exclusively but largely about: they have a very arbitrary definition of the scope of "protection". Why is Apache listed? Presumably because IBM, which is OIN's most important backer, has a strategic desire to protect Apache. If Apache is protected, I don't see why Dalvik shouldn't be. But OIN isn't about objective criteria. It's all about the strategic interests of six companies owning it, and plenty of others who become licensees are misled and misguided.

tl;dr summary since I got pretty long-winded: The problem is that Java was never open in the first place. Users of FOSS need to learn to decide for themselves when technologies aren't really open, and avoid using them.

It will be hard to find out whether Oracle planned this kind of aggression when buying Sun, but it can certainly be stated that the free software/open source community hasn't benefited from the acquisition.

There's a number of important questions that Oracle's patent attack raises:

* Did Oracle try to resolve this amicably with Google (by way of a license deal) or is Oracle pursuing purely destructive objectives?

Does this really matter? It would have been good for PR, but is anyone really under the illusion that Oracle wants to play nice with anyone? Personally I'd rather companies make it clear when they intend to swing around the "government-sanctioned monopolist hammer" instead of pretending that they're really quite reasonable, but that you do owe them quite a bit of money for using that technology they insisted was really open. Regarding PR, this kind of activity does put companies in my, "prone to dangerous legal demands" category, but frankly, Sun and Oracle were already both in that category.

* Will Google solve this patent problem in a way that the entire Android ecosystem (including the makers of Android-based phones and the authors of Android apps) will be reassured, or will Google only take care of its own risk?

Valid and important question, but as a non-Android and non-Java developer, I'm not interested in the answer.

* Is Java less of an open standard now than C#? I don't really buy the argument that Oracle may only be suing because of deviations from the standards definition. This kind of patent attack is evil no matter whether Google adhere to certain specififcations or not.

I wouldn't say Java is "less" open than C#. I do and always have put them in the same boat, which is "IP minefield, never develop in these environments." Also, this action changed NOTHING. Java has ALWAYS been an IP minefield just as much as C#, it's just that Sun managed to fool quite a few more people about it than Microsoft could. The only good patents are patents that are effectively neutered by PERMISSIVE patent grants. Sun's patent grant has always been a joke.

* Isn't this now the ultimate proof that the Open Invention Network doesn't really protect the Linux ecosystem from patent attacks? This is case of one OIN licensee (Oracle) suing another (Google).

Another interesting question, OIN's license only grants acces to patents specifically related to the Linux System as defined by OIN. After a quick look through the listing, the Java SDK itself doesn't seem to be there. There are several components that rely on Java (ant, an eclipse java compiler, a gcc Java runtime), but if those packages don't exercise the patents in question, then Oracle is acting exactly as the OIN is designed to allow them to act.

I don't see this as a failing of OIN. The way I see it, the fact that the Java SDK isn't considered a part of the "Linux System" by OIN means that Oracle doesn't consider Java to be open, which means to me that I don't want to use or rely on Java. It's nice for PR to say things like, "OIN protects licensees from patent threats related to Linux", but if you're going to be doing business based on that assurance, you should definitely be checking the definitions and making sure that what you think is covered is actually covered.

After putting in a bit more thought before posting, I have to say that while my previous comments are valid, your point is also valid. The "Linux Ecosystem", a more broadly defined set of software than the quite narrowly-defined "Linux System" according to OIN, is not at all fully covered

build up a communal "opne source" patent list

you're welcome.

Members include: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php

Members include: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php

Link

> It appears TomTom bowed to the pressure and settled with Microsoft

I don't believe this to be a true account of what happened.

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php

Have a look at the OIN website and feel their strength. IBM is one of the members, they're standing up 100% for Linux and Microsoft simply does not have a chance.

Red Hat has embarked on a patenting strategy and the company may be bought by someone with less scruples.

Even if that were the case, do not forget that Red Hat contributes their patents to Open Invention Network so they are available royalty-free to anyone who promises to not assert patents against Linux.

We have know for a long time that Red Hat is a patent troll. They make IBM look like noobs.

Ok, c'mon now... Redhat (IBM as well) is part of OIN... Press Release here... How about we wait until they actually do something trollish before throwing around accusations like they were government bailout money...

We have know for a long time that Red Hat is a patent troll. They make IBM look like noobs.

Ok, c'mon now... Redhat (IBM as well) is part of OIN... Press Release here... How about we wait until they actually do something trollish before throwing around accusations like they were government bailout money...

RedHat is a member of the Open Invention Network. This means that they will not sue you if you do not attempt to use your patents against Linux. There is a License Agreement, so it is best to read that instead of simply suspecting.

It's a good question and is answered in the license:

2.3 If through a change of control or otherwise, on a given date, You become unable to grant all the rights granted in Section 1.2, then: (a) the license granted in Section 1.1 shall terminate on such date; (b) the license granted in Section 1.2 and vesting prior to such date shall continue; and (c) for the purpose of this Section 2.3 only, the Capture Period as to OIN Patents, Licensee Patents, and Your Patents shall end on said date. --- License Agreement

However the companies involved in the OIN would have to ensure that they disentangle all their technology assets from the patents held by other members if they did not want to be sued. Rather a large undertaking and one that would disrupt most of the profitable enterprise revenue. So it's kind of a flypaper that gets more effective the longer its around and the more that its used.

If RedHat was really serious about the patents being defensive, wouldn't it make sense for them to donate them to an open source patent pool?

As Red Hat is a member of the Open Invention Network, a group dedicated to creating a pool of defensive patents, that is likely to happen.

Red Hat's public promise to never use their patents against Free or Open Source Software surely nullifies any such worry? As Red Hat are one of the main contributors to the Open Invention Network I would hope that they will add this patent to the other ones currently mutually held by OIN to defend FLOSS against patent attacks. That would make this worry completely invalid.

Well, if they do sell the patents, it would be nice if the Open Invention Network people were standing first in line to buy them. http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/index.php/

That being said, regardless if you like Novell or not, they contribute to some of the most important and popular projects for F/OSS that if you use almost any distribution, you are touching daily.

Your assessment of the situation is flawed and incorrect. Please see the following as some proof: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._Novell http://www.novell.com/ctoblog/?p=54 So... In summation, if you use the Linux Kernel, SAMBA, Gnome, KDE or any numter of other F/OSS products/projects...thank Novell for their contributions.

That being said, regardless if you like Novell or not, they contribute to some of the most important and popular projects for F/OSS that if you use almost any distribution, you are touching daily.

Your assessment of the situation is flawed and incorrect. Please see the following as some proof: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._Novell http://www.novell.com/ctoblog/?p=54 So... In summation, if you use the Linux Kernel, SAMBA, Gnome, KDE or any numter of other F/OSS products/projects...thank Novell for their contributions.

You may want to contact Open Invention Network.

This already exists and is called Open Invention Network.

Wasn't http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ created to combat this sort of event? What happens if the linux camp responds with suites of their own? Looking at OIN's portfolio, some of those patents look rather weighty. Not to mention that Novell, IBM, Redhat, and Sony all support linux and all have extremely large portfolios of their own. Did the principle of M.A.D. that the industry has relied on to keep from imploding just fly out the window? [IANAL, Rampant Speculation, etc, etc]

The name you are looking for is the Open Invention Network, which is backed by such small-time players as Google, IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony.

Open Invention NetworkSM is an intellectual property company that was formed to promote Linux by using patents to create a collaborative environment. It promotes a positive, fertile ecosystem for Linux, which in turns drives innovation and choice in the global marketplace. This helps ensure the continuation of innovation that has benefited software vendors, customers, emerging markets and investors.

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.

Red Hat doesn't need to "bring the big boys to their side". They're already there.

You do know about the Open Innovation Network, right? http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/

They've already said they'll be involved with any attempt by Microsoft to enforce patent rights on Linux, and OIN has a much much larger patent stockpile than Microsoft has.

This does not add any more legitimacy to the fact that MS is full of FUD. How much more do you want than them saying "No, Microsoft is wrong" ? Novell disagreed with Microsoft's assertions that this proved Linux violated their patents.

Btw, Novell has stockpiles of cash and is a member of http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_licensee s.php

Go read about them. They are protecting your ass.

By the way, about me not knowing your reasons, I don't have to know your reasons. If you have them based on misinformation YOU are the one who is wrong. Your circular logic does not work here.

... is one with each other. Some sort of mutual defense agreement.

That's already been done, more or less, with the Linux Foundation and the Open Invention Network. Groups like Red Hat and IBM are members of both; Novell, somewhat ironically, is even a member of OIN.

Or did you have some plan for providing these defensive patents to "everyone"?

It's already being done.

No, it's absolutely not "his word against theirs" unless he's examined MS patents.

Nonsense, your zealotry is showing. Until M$ identifies the patents concerned and independent third parties can judge them it is exactly his word against their's.

M$ probably contravenes some of the Open Invention Network's patents. Most real-world software contravenes the idiotic patents currently being released. It's all hot air without examining the individual patents.

---

Monopolies = Industrial feudalism