Summary: An expansion of scope at the OIN does not help resolve the real problems GNU/Linux and Free software at large are having
THERE IS an update on patents coming soon. According to Wildeboer from Red Hat, "Apple also wants 5-15 US$ per Android device. Just as Microsoft." As the OIN's CEO put it to me over the phone, Apple and Microsoft (he calls them the "duopoly") are trying to make Android "uneconomic", to use his term that he repeated a lot for over an hour. I recently got an invitation to meet him in London, but I had to decline because it's far from where I live (Manchester), so instead I suggested an E-mail interview. They agreed, but when I asked questions such as how the OIN would deal with patent trolls (I named MOSAID) they seemed to have changed their mind about the interview. The matter of fact is, the OIN is flawed. It works for IBM perhaps, but not for us independent developers who are not part of a company weighing at hundreds of thousands of full-time employees (and tens of thousands of patents, which is not so impressive given the headcount).
A month ago the
OIN boasted "Strong 2011 Licensing Performance" (whatever that practically means, notice the term "licensing") and we keep wondering, what will they do about patent trolls? Microsoft is
already operating through MOSAID. We foresaw this and asked the OIN about MOSAID more than a month ago. What about the
Twin Peaks lawsuit against Red Hat (about s fortnight ago)? What can the OIN do? Nothing. Or not much.
Nevertheless, the OIN is addressing one of the other criticisms of its strategy. It expands its scope of coverage even further to
more Free software projects such as
KVM, Git, OpenJDK, and WebKit. Mobile Linux distributions like Android, MeeGo, and webOS will also soon be expressly protected.
We asked about those Linux distributions over a month ago, but the OIN returned no response. The secrecy at the OIN needs to stop. And the hard questions -- in particular the one about patent trolls -- need to be tackled. Until then, destroying all software patents -- not subscribing to the OIN -- is the right solution. We find it interesting that OIN will cover WebKit, which is in part being developed by Apple -- the cult which is suing Android/Linux and demands a tax or products embargo. OpenJDK is also covered despite the fact that an OIN member, Oracle, is suing a over Dalvik. Samba's lawyer once said that
the only solution is abolition and he was right. The OIN neither pursues nor advocates abolition; its business model and very existence depends on patents. Sites like
Groklaw, which is led by a law professor, present a similar point of view, which can be problematic at times (patents being essential to one's living). My intention is not to disparage anyone but merely to explain the conflict of interests and the point of view of companies like Intel and IBM (and their de facto front groups).
⬆
Comments
mcinsand
2012-03-07 21:04:40
If we do write in enough numbers, we can make a difference. Granted, MS will probably go away, and Apple will be only limited to selling to the remaining whose egos are satisfied by paying overpriced for underchoiced, but Apple will still survive. PT Barnum hasn't been wrong yet. In the end, the rest will benefit by having leading edge features without being restricted by walled gardens.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
2012-03-08 01:23:11
mcinsand
2012-03-08 03:15:31
All the same, that Macs sell at all shows that the principal holds, no matter who said it.
mcinsand
2012-03-08 03:16:01
Michael
2012-03-08 03:29:37
Apple has earned its highest user satisfaction ratings. Desktop Linux is clearly improving and I hope it continues to (how could it not). Many of the changes in Ubuntu, for example, are being done because of how the KDE and Gnome teams have dropped the ball on making the software made for each system less inconsistent. Would be much better to come from that level than to have Ubuntu have to sorta kludge solutions... and the fact that the solutions have to be kludged hurts the user experience.
This who myth by some in the OSS community about Apple being overpriced is just silly... if they were too expensive for what they offered they would not sell as well as they do. Cheaper alternatives would make that impossible. The complaint is merely sour grapes. Again, I am happy to discuss this in more detail with more specifics and data and evidence and logic. But Roy and crew are not willing or able to... they operate on emotion and the wishes that their preferred platform was as good, or most users, as the top of the line platform.
Michael
2012-03-08 03:30:27
Michael
2012-03-08 02:57:12
I think they can act and work fairly and still be economical. Apple does it... so there is proof it can be done and even done well. Maybe Google will find a way to do so as well.