Google Partners With OIN For Linux

lymeca writes "Groklaw reports that Google has become the Open Invention Network's first end-user licensee. The OIN was established by companies such as IBM, Red Hat, and somewhat ironically Novell to accumulate patents and license them royalty-free to any company promising not to leverage their own patent portfolio against key applications available on GNU/Linux, including many GNU projects as well as Linux itself. Google's support bolsters the OIN's effectiveness as a shield against patent attacks against GNU/Linux and many popular applications that run on it."

All-out attack on my cynicism?

[Control Group (105494)]

OK, I've been thinking about this setup for at least five minutes now, and I admit, it seems like a genuinely good idea (the OIN bit, not just the Google going for it bit). Companies using their patent portfolios to shut down patent trolling is this =>= close to giving me a warm fuzzy right under the cockles of my heart.

So what's the catch? What am I missing, here, that turns this from an actual Good Thing for the software community (with concomitant benefits to the involved organizations, of course) into an attempt to rape the commons for short-term profit? Or is my cynicism, for possibly the first time ever, completely unwarranted?

Re:

[HappySmileMan (1088123)]

I don't know much about the legal implications of it, but this seems like they may actually just be doing it for the good of the community?

I'm as surprised as you are... Though software patents don't exist in Europe so I suppose it's kinda useless for everyone except Americans?

Re:

[snoyberg (787126)]

I don't know much about the legal implications of it, but this seems like they may actually just be doing it for the good of the community?

I'm as surprised as you are... Though software patents don't exist in Europe so I suppose it's kinda useless for everyone except Americans?

Not really useless; if a European wants to sell software in the US, this would be very valuable.

Re:All-out attack on my cynicism?

[tgatliff (311583)]

The main purpose, in my opinion, for the OIN is to help insure the successful transition of the industry from software sales based to services based... These companies are broken up into two categories..

The first group are companies are the ones that already offer just services, meaning that the software they use is insignificant to their mode of business, so having software that is free to use is important. Also, getting sued is a significant risk for these companies business models. Google would be a great example for this type of company. If google had to pay for every OS, database, and file system on every server they have, I question if their business model would even be possible or viable...

The second group is companies that still work in the business of writing/distrib. software, but are not the top players in the industry. IBM would be a great example of this type of company. These types of companies are realizing, though, that business of "selling" software is slowing going away. The future of software is to sell the services that follow the software. This type of income not only provides a better revenue stream, but also is considerably more profitable..

So who is OIN truely targetting Simple.. To strike after companies that are still are based on just selling software and have the most to loose in the transition to software services... M$ comes to mind.. :-)

Re:

[Kalriath (849904)]

So who is OIN truely targetting Simple.. To strike after companies that are still are based on just selling software and have the most to loose in the transition to software services... M$ comes to mind.. :-)

No Twitter, it doesn't ( oh wait, you're not Twitter? You sure as hell sound like him, and that's not a compliment) . The OIN is not about striking ANYONE. It is a defensive organisation, not an offensive one. The OIN is a pool of companies who hold patents to offer to other members provided they adhere to the values of the pool.

To some extent, it's all about Mutually Assured Destruction. They hold so many patents in their pool that should any company sue one of their members, they could almost assur

Re:

[tgatliff (311583)]

Just for the record, I did put that it was my opinion, just as what you put is your opinion... Everyone does have one you know... :-)

Also, in no way would I consider the OIN a offensive organization. Just a strong defensive one. Also, I dont know about your MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) argument, but I admit that I do get your point... I strongly doubt, however, many scenarios where a lawsuit ends with destruction of both companies... Look at the SCO versus IBM for a legal comparison.

Also, I dont fe

Re:

[AndersOSU (873247)]

It is a good thing, but it only half solves the problem. While this decreases the incentive for google to file for offensive patents, it does nothing to mitigate the need for defensive patents, lest they be sued by a small non-OIN-member patent troll.

Re:All-out attack on my cynicism?

[Billly Gates (198444)]

As much as I despise software patents I think this is for the following situation. WHen a software company sues someone that other someone brings their armory of patents to the table and they make a licensing deal on who pays what.

Whoever has the most software patents wins and gets the money or more of it,

So we have a war where companies are trying to patent everything under the sun to protect themselves in case they get sued. Its just defense to prevent them for being sued as they can sue back.

Meanwhile free software developers dont want to pay $5k or whatever it costs to patent a concept or mathmatical algorithm so they are screwed if they are sued. They have no battle chest to defend themselves on.

There is one company that has everyone scared called Intellectual Ventures formed by a former MS scientist who only has laywers on staff. Basically his business model is to sue everyone and since they do not make anything you can not sue back. Kind of scary but good if it will make the industry think twice about protective patents. They have not gone after Linux yet because they have no money but guess who owns stock in the company and who has incredible influence as the CEO was a friend of both Balmer and Gates? You guessed it Microsoft.

I have a feeling they may go after Linux if pressured but we will see.

Re:All-out attack on my cynicism?

[kebes (861706)]

Such cynicism is usually warranted. Big companies are out to make money, regardless of who they trample over in the process. So, whenever there is a big move by a big company, we must ask "who is getting trampled?"

The fact is, however, that OIN is a good thing. I think it's important to realize the significance of this: We have huge, powerful companies (IBM, Google, etc.) voluntarily participating in a project that protects FOSS and encourages the free distribution of innovative ideas and Free software. The answer to the obvious "why would these companies do something seemingly benevolent?" is that the FOSS community has done a good job of engineering the landscape that way.

Basically, the years of work by the FOSS community has created an environment where coming together and preventing patent threats against Free software is in the best interests of those big companies! The community (via legal things like the GPL, and less tangible things like "public outcry," boycotts, and "community spirit") have made it clear that business will only continue to benefit from the power and flexibility of FOSS if they play by certain rules. (Keep code open, keep software patents at bay.) The business sector has stepped up to the plate and is enforcing those FOSS requirements... not because they are benevolent, but because they recognize that the payback from the community will be "worth it."

So to those who still (in this day and age!) doubt that FOSS can be relevant to businesses, or that people can "make money from Free software"--let this be an obvious message. The free market has spoken... and it has said "This stuff has value, we want more of it, and we're prepared to do what it takes to protect your continued efforts at innovation."

This crucial win-win between FOSS and business is a result of the FOSS people having uncompromising requirements, and the business people being smart enough to see a great opportunity.

Re:

[CompSci101 (706779)]

Are you sure it's in the cockles of your heart?

Is it possibly below the cockles? In the sub-cockle area, perhaps?

Maybe the liver or the kidneys?

The colon?

Maybe we'll never know...

C

So what happens when someone buys Google?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Is the buyer bound by Google's promises?

For that matter, is *Google* actually legally
bound by a promise to not use patents against any
particular person/group/corporation?

I get the feeling the OIN is a feel-good thing,
and actually doesn't have any legal teeth in it.

Re:

[HappySmileMan (1088123)]

The OIN aquires patents, so if google is bought it can start to be an asshole with any new patents, but the patents it has already owned will be the property of the OIN as far as I know...

And if google drops out of the OIN does that not leave them open to be sued by the OIN for using those very patents or is that an exception?

I know nothing about patent law but that's my interpretation

Re:So what happens when someone buys Google?

[mhall119 (1035984)]

Google licensed OIN patents, it didn't (in this article) contribute any of it's own patents to OIN. Basically what this move does is gives Google the ability to use these patents from IBM, Novell and Red Hat in it's own products. It also (and more importantly) means that Google would lose that ability if it ever decided to sue Linux or any part of what OIN defines as a "Linux System". Since nobody was every really concerned about Google doing that, this is more of a PR move to bolster both Google's standing in the FOSS community, and to give corporate legitimacy to the OIN, which will hopefully spur other, possibly smaller, companies into licensing OIN patents as well, maybe even contributing some of it's own patents. OIN is to patents what FOSS is to copyright.

Re:

[Shadowlore (10860)]

They are legally bound by a contractual obligation. In a way it is a form of community MAD. You get "consideration" (legal term for something in exchange) in the form of free use of other patents in exchange for other licensees to do the same with yours. Breaking this would be a contractual breach but also expose you to retaliation by the other holders for your use of their patents.

Good move but...

[by Anonymous Coward]

This OIN arrangement may be effective at bolstering defenses against patent aggression but it does nothing to defend against flying chairs!

Re:

[ozone_sniffer (778249)]

INCOMING!

OIN Training?

[greg_barton (5551)]

What would they call the training arm of OIN? Open Invention Network Knowledge?

Re:OIN Training?

[greg_barton (5551)]

Nah, I've got it...

Open Invention Network Training: More Exciting New Technology

Re:

[doxology (636469)]

Germane Reeducation for the Open Invention Network

Re:

[greg_barton (5551)]

No, actually I just hate register.com with a passion. They fucked me sumthin' fierce when I got that domain with horrible hosting that was basically unusable, then wouldn't cancel it when I asked. I just let the domain lapse and haven't set up an alternate yet. Forgot to take it off my profile.

And, oh yeah... FUCK REGISTER.COM

I, for one, welcome our...

[Will the Chill (78436)]

IP-investing FOSS-patent-acumulating Google overlords!

-WtC

*please insert sig*

"Spitting in the wind" Bruce Perens...

[jkrise (535370)]

That was his response when OIN was formed. Linux and Free Software do not, repeat DO NOT ned the OIN for gaining mindshare or marketshare - the OIN is largely a distraction sponsored by an elite club, at odds with reality.

Now that GPL3 has neutered patent threats from Microsoft, Google's tie-up with the OIN seems actually a bad PR move.

Re:

[Otter (3800)]

On the other hand, his solution was to buy the expensive indemnification insurance he was promoting. How did that work out for you?

Re:

[jkrise (535370)]

On the other hand, his solution was to buy the expensive indemnification insurance he was promoting.

I think large-scale products like the Linux kernel and Apache are better served by the GPL than by half-hearted smart-brained schemes that a few big names come up with once a while. Initiatives like the OIN actually take away from the good work accomplished by the GPL, IMO.

Fun fact

[Pluvius (734915)]

Another name for OIN is GNU/Linux Open Invention Network (GLOIN). I've also heard rumors that the companies involved are going to create a group to endorse the increased usage of Linux on Internet servers. It'll be called the Greater Internet Mobilization of Linux Initiative (GIMLI).

Rob

Re:Fun fact

[grcumb (781340)]

Another name for OIN is GNU/Linux Open Invention Network (GLOIN). I've also heard rumors that the companies involved are going to create a group to endorse the increased usage of Linux on Internet servers. It'll be called the Greater Internet Mobilization of Linux Initiative (GIMLI).

Unfortunately, they were disbanded after a legal challenge by the Seattle Microsoft Advanced Users Group (SMAUG). Cost them a mountain of gold....

Sony?

[Aleksej (1110877)]

"somewhat ironically Novell" -- yes, somewhat. What is Sony doing there?

Re:

[Miykayl (841085)]

Although I appreciate your differences with RMS, the tendency for the FSF to divide and separate GNU and Linux goes back almost to the birth of Linus' first Linux kernel, because the FSF and Linus have important differences of opinion regarding software, and because GNU is hoped to be bigger than Linux, or at least not limited to Linux.

I have no problem with GNU and Linux shown together in the parent. It will help us understand the different players, and the different philosophies in the F/OSS arena.

Once u

Re:

[ardle (523599)]

I don't think anything will end up being called GNU except GNU. GNU/Linux is Linux, GNU/Win32 is Cygwin. What will GNU/Hurd be called?
BTW can Cygwin run on WINE?

Re:

[The Original Yama (454111)]

GNU/Hurd is simply known as GNU, or the GNU OS. Hurd is a GNU project, and hence does not gain separate mention.

In contrast, GNU/Linux is so called because it would be wrong for the FSF to claim ownership over Linux and call the whole thing GNU. They give Linux credit by acknowledging it separately, using a slash (or a + sign in some cases) to indicate that they don't own it. If they were claiming ownership they'd be saying "GNU Linux", not "GNU/Linux" or "GNU+Linux". RMS is very careful to pronounce the sl

Re:

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

IMO, it makes sense to say GNU/Linux when you are referring to a GNU system running on Linux. This is different from, say, a few GNU utilities being used on Solaris, or some PicoGUI/Busybox/Linux combination. Linux really is the kernel, and it can be used in a lot of interesting ways that do not involve GNU. A lot of software that runs on "Linux" really runs on GNU. That same software would happily compile and run on a GNU OS with a different kernel, but not on Linux with a different userland.

What I am tryi

Re:

[Qubit (100461)]

So, A.C., I see we meet again!

If you do in fact run the Linux kernel on your computer, why don't you take your own advice and "Please Stop Using 'GNU/Linux'" ?

I mean, if you want to just call it Linux, why don't you just rip out all of the GNU utilities that make it usable by mere mortals such as us? ...unless you think you're a Seymour Cray and can hand-toggle in disk I/O and such things, of course...

Is RMS a bit outlandish? Oh, certainly.
Is Linus also, shall we say...hmm...eccentric? Indubitably.

Of course

Re:Please Stop Using "GNU/Linux"

[notthe9 (800486)]

It's your old friend AC, you noticed. Why feed the troll?

Anyways, there are a lot of folks to thank for the stuff making your computer go. The FSF and the Linux kernel people come to mind. The X.org people, too. The KDE people. I could go on a while.

They should all be given credit where credit was due. But that doesn't mean I should say that my computer runs GNU/Linux/X11/KDE every time I need to name my operating system. It doesn't take credit away from the X.org people to tell someone I run GNU/Linux, and it doesn't take credit away from the FSF people when I say I run Linux.

Would I be critical of someone for using the term GNU/Linux like the flamebait parent? No. It's a fair enough term, and one I sometimes use.

Does it make sense to be critical of people for calling their GNU/Linux/X11 systems Linux? I don't see why. They aren't taking away any credit from anyone, just using what has happened to become common parlance.

Re:

[sayfawa (1099071)]

Everything that you've said seems fair. But where it isn't fair is when some newspaper or magazine or FOSS users who just don't know any better first call the whole OS Linux and then go on to say that Linus invented it.

It can't be both. Either it's just the kernel and Linus made it, or it's the OS and Stallman, Linus and a bunch of other people made it. And I'm not saying that you did this in your post. It just ticks me off when I see a journalist do that in print.

Re:

[bob.appleyard (1030756)]

This is a perennial problem of science/tech journalism: most journalists, funnily enough, trained to write about stuff, not actually know about stuff. You can pretty much blag it in most areas, but there needs to be a certain level of understanding that you need before you can jump in and write about science and, to a lesser degree, technology. It's quite rare that this occurs, at least in mainstream media.

Re:

[just_another_sean (919159)]

I mainly continue to call my OS GNU/Linux because I use Debian and that's what they call it.

I agree that everyone calling there OS "Linux/A Little KDE/Some X/And, of course a lot of GNU!" would be rediculous but if a distro (like Debian) specifically brands there product GNU/Linux then that's what it's called, love it or hate it.

Taking offense at my simple take on this matter seems pretty stupid to me... Conversely I don't worry if someone calls a Debian distro "Linux". I may silently correct them in my hea

Re:

[notthe9 (800486)]

According to the about section [debian.org] of the Debian website

WHAT is Debian?
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common cause to create a free operating system. This operating system that we have created is called Debian GNU/Linux, or simply Debian for short.

Terms like GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd would be especially useful when distinguishing the projects, but using them outside of that distinction is not unfair, and it does align with the way the Debian folks use language.

Re:

[just_another_sean (919159)]

Hmm, your quote looks familiar. Ah right, it's the first paragraph on the Debian home page...

Here's the whole thing for anyone who doesn't feel like visiting the site [debian.org]:

What is Debian?

Debian is a free operating system (OS) for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian uses the Linux kernel (the core of an operating system), but most of the basic OS tools come from the GNU project; hence the name GNU/Linux.

Debian GNU/Linux provides more than a pure OS: it comes with over 18733 packages, precompiled software bundled up in a nice format for easy installation on your machine.

But if you want to refer to Debian GNU/Linux as just Linux, that's OK, I won't hold it against you. Anymore then I would be upset with you telling me you run Hurd, instead of Debain GNU/Hurd.

Re:

[Repossessed (1117929)]

I see "GNU/Linux" mostly as a historical concept. both the Linux and GNU projects originally had little do do with each other. GNU was one operating system, and Minix was another. The operating system I have today, is a result of the two projects being merged. (The Linux kernel combined with the userland that the GNU project had been putting together (though I don't think all, or even most, of it was FSF code) ). Thus GNU and Linux can be seen as the parents of the GNU/Linux operating system. Calling

Re:

[Jeek Elemental (976426)]

if you dont like GNU youre gonna love HURD:

"According to Thomas Bushnell, BSG, the primary architect of the Hurd:
`Hurd' stands for `Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons'. And, then, `Hird' stands for `Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth'. We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms."

its so magnificently geeky it should be the standard by which all else is measured.

seriously tho, using GNU/Linux is a nod to the massive contri

Re:

[SailorSpork (1080153)]

Unix-Replacing Daemons of Interfaces Representing Depth
Interfaces Representing Depth of Unix-Replacing Daemons

I'm going to need a translator here...

Re:

[XedLightParticle (1123565)]

Linux is "just" the kernel
and GNU is what makes it useful.

But, I gotta agree that it seems unnecessarily confusing using that as the name of the system, especially if you want to promote the use of this great software combination. Because by consequently using the GNU/Linux term, you make people feel stupid and start telling the history of the OS already before they get started, it would be like if you had to say DOS/Windows or NEXT/MacOS each and every time you mention it.

I don't think it looks or sounds r

Re:

[bob.appleyard (1030756)]

Problem with proprietary device drivers is if they're kernel modules (most are). That means they link to a piece of GPL'd software -- you are therefore violating copyright to license that module under anything but the GPL.

So proprietary device drivers are illegal.

Re:

[WPIDalamar (122110)]

If using the compiler is a determining factor, then I've developed on both GNU/OSX and GNU/Windows! If cross compiling counts, I've even used GNU/Palm!

Re:

[Cyberax (705495)]

Ummm... Nope, you have not.

Windows itself is not compiled with GCC. However, GNU/OSX seems a fair name.

Re:

[cp.tar (871488)]

Windows itself is not compiled with GCC.

And in the dark depths of a Microsoft coders' dungeo^Wbaseme^Wlounge, there was a soft chuckle of an aged coder. His slavedr^Wsupervisor pulled out his wh^H^Hchair and approached him menacingly.

S: "What is so funny?"

C: "Look at this comment! If only they knew..."

S: "What are you blabbering about, old fool? Has all that caffeine rotted your brain? It's true, Windows itself is not compiled with GCC."

C: "True, it is not. It is compiled with the Visual C compiler. But haven't you ever wondered what was th

Re:

[Solra Bizna (716281)]

But haven't you ever wondered what was the Visual C compiler compiled with?

Sorry to ruin the gag, but probably the Visual C compiler. [wikipedia.org]

-:sigma.SB

Re:

[cp.tar (871488)]

Well, duh, Captain Obvious...

Re:

[krgallagher (743575)]

"Hmm, nope. Linux is only a tiny little part of a typical system."

While it is true that GNU is the largest part of a typical distribution, technically the OS [wikipedia.org] is the layer that runs between the hardware and the system software. I quote the Wikipedia article referenced above:

"Operating Systems themselves have no user interfaces; the user of an OS is an application, not a person. The operating system forms a platform for other system software and for application software. Windows, Linux, and Mac OS are some

Re:

[Billly Gates (198444)]

Why dont we just name windows GNU/Windows because I have mingw installed on it?

There as needs to be a line and calling something gnu means the product itself is gnu is what RMS is trying to say. Linux could exist without gnu just thank you if BSD libc libraries were used as well as numerous free c compilers have been on the net for awhile.