Open Invention Network Calls Out Microsoft

Stony Stevenson writes with news that the head of the Open Invention Network has summarily dismissed Microsoft's claims that Linux violates a number of its patents. Calling the move 'clear FUD', Jerry Rosenthal calls them out by asking for Microsoft to disclose the patents they are worried about. His argument is that if the patents are something to be proud of, if the software giant feels they're sure to succeed in court, there's no need for behind-the-hand namecalling. "Rosenthal believes that, if there are grounds for patent infringement, there would either be easy workarounds or the open source community would find 'prior art' which would invalidate the patent. OIN buys patents on the open market and makes them available to companies royalty free, so long as those companies pledge never to use their own patents to attack open source code.The organisation was set up by IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony and has a war chest of millions of dollars."

Snuffleupagus says hi!

[crush]

"Intellectual property" is a misleading portmanteau of completely separate branches of law: trademarks, copyrights and patents. But the OIN despite the badly worded mission statement concentrates on patents. Specifically its a defensive patent pool (with contributions from Red Hat, Sun, Novell, IBM and others) which can be licensed by any company agreeing not to use its own patents in aggressive lawsuits against pool members.

Currently the three largest licensess are Google, Barracuda and Sun.

David Wheeler has a good overview here [dwheeler.com]

Given the current lamentable state of the patent system the OIN is probably the only way in which some sanity can be established. It must be awkward to be Novell right now having endorsed the OIN on one hand, and also endorsed the existence of Microsoft's Snuffleupagus [wikipedia.org] Patents.

Re:Ballmer

[phantomfive]

How the heck was that off topic? The OIN is responding directly to a claim made by Balmer that linux violates Microsoft patents. That claim was made shortly after a study was made by an open source insurance group claiming the exact same thing. All of this came about as a result of the SCO fiasco.
Links:
The original study [slashdot.org]
The Ballmer threat [slashdot.org]

I swear people here have such a short memory.

Re:Save your breath

[HiThere]

You would want to specify them because if you know your patents are being violated, and you don't either sue with specificity, or define in particular which patents so that the offending party can correct the problem, then you eventually lose the right to sue over the patents being violated.

"Eventually" is the sticking point. I don't know how long the period is, but it's measured in years, but I believe fewer than 5 of them. (I'm not sure that courts have ever decided on a particular number...so in egregious cases it could be shorter...or longer.)

This implies that if MS knows about the patent violation and neither acts to cure it nor enables others to cure it, then it is in danger of losing the right to sue. (Well, not actually to sue, but to win.) I think this is called the doctrine of latches.

Caution: IANAL.

Re:The OIN is a redundant outfit...

[Aladrin]

Doesn't really matter what 1 organization says, it matters what the world says. Here's a little bit of the rest of the world:

http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ [wipo.int]

Here's a little sample, emphasis is mine:

Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs.

Re:Save your breath

[tinkerghost]

Under the concept of Laches & Equitiability, MS can sue, but they can't get any money. IE.

1. they claimed they were being harmed
2. they were asked to provide specifics so that the harm could be stopped
3. they ignored the request

By ignoring the request, they have contributed to their own damages & are therefor supposed to be unable to collect any damages up until they specify the patents - continued infringement past that point is subject to damages.