Jamie McCracken (jamiemcc) wrote,
Jamie McCracken

How Oracle can easily be defeated in its patent offensive against Android

Fortuitously it appears Oracle is a licensee of OIN (Open innovation network) which enforces the company to forego patent attacks against any product protected by OIN - http://xml.coverpages.org/Oracle-OIN.html

Makes you wonder why they dont add Android and Dalvrik to OIN's collection of protected technologies and hence do away with the attack (even if it cant stop backdated attacks it can at least leave the future clear). Google is also a licensee of OIN but maybe it needs to up its membership to the equivalent of one of the founders to enjoy this level of protection

Interestingly, OIN appears to be rather stealthy and no longer publishes a list of protected technologies (other than mentioning linux) nor does it make public any strategy or commitment to protect anything. It might be doing this to prevent patent trolls finding loopholes or to prevent the organisation from wasting resources in unwinnable situations. Then again, it might just be an impotent organisation with no real teeth or one that only caters to protect the interests of its founding members and no one else.

Its amazing how much power OIN has (100+ patents) yet does very little to prevent the likes of Microsoft, Apple and Oracle from their anti-competitive and unethical actions which result in terrorising users of Open source with patents. The only success it has had was to purchase a set of anit-Linux patents that Microsoft would have sold to a bunch of trolls. Time to end the moral cowardice of OIN if you ask me...

  • Surely the internet makes software patents obsolete?

    At least for internet connected devices. I mean why is it that companies bother fighting or capitulating when they could simply outflank the bastard…

  • Why Android and Meego should merge

    I have to say there is quite a lot I like about Android but there's always a few things that are done better in Meego (like not needing a constant…

  • Own goal

    If you ask me, Oracle has scored a massive own goal by suing Google. Not least because if it expects to wrest back control of Java and make billions…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
Dont you think its strange there is not a link from their home page to that page?
Are you sure you understand the following two things well enough to judge the role and purpose of the Open Inventions Network (especially in public)?

- The role of the OIN
- How its legal machinery is invoked
- The implications for Google to invoke the OIN to protect their technology against Oracle's claims?

To be honest, I don't think you do, and that is the reason why this post comes over as uninformed. Much more so, it looks like you're trying to make a point without understanding the issue at hand. Not exactly a surprise, since this kind of situations is often convoluted with legalese and complex due to the nature of IP law.
I was merely suggesting use of OIN as a strategy to comprehensively defeat Oracle due to it being a licensee without any legal action. It is not about using OIN's IP as a shield or to launch counterattacks - its about using Oracles OIN license which forbids them to lodge patent attacks against OIN's protected technologies

However OIN has proved to be ineffective in the past (cf TomTom vs Microsoft) and its doubful it would help here even though it merely needs to lift its finger without any risk to itself
You forgot the possibility that Google might not *want* to invoke the OIN for a counter-attack against Apple.

Why TomTom didn't invoke the OIN to defend Microsoft's patent attacks can only be speculated about, but apparently they've decided to use their own patents to counter-attack Microsoft.

The point really is that the OIN is not a silver-bullet, just an optional layer of protection against the threat of patent attacks, and that for large corporations it's often not the only way to fight such claims.

For individual developers, or Free software organisations without their own patent pool, the relevance is probably a lot higher.

In any case, saying that the OIN is a teethless dragon based on Google's (and TomTom's legal strategy) is I think a short-sighted conclusion.
Well TomTom contacted OIN when it came under attack by Microsoft and later licensed OIN but it appears OIN did not provide enough to stop TomTom making a deal with Microsoft. Was it cause TomTom was not an OIN licensee at the time of the attack?

The point I make about OIN is there is no information available on what it would do to achieve its aims of protecting innovation in the linux sphere from patent attacks. It appears to be arbitrary and subject to the will of its founders and on past evidence cannot be relied upon to protect a non-founder member even if they are a licensee ergo questions are bound to arise and criticism levied