I beg to differ though. The OIN is not an effective response, unless one is a big corporation. Additionally, for those who care about software freedom, the OIN does not provide a useful defence. I’ve explained this before and so did the FFII. The OIN itself cannot quite address the criticisms either.

Moreover, the OIN tries to give the illusion of being open but it in fact keeps its cards close to its chest and for the second time it asked me if I wanted to speak to their CEO (also invited me to London to speak to him), whereupon I asked some challenging questions and did not receive a response to them. I did not ask anything rudely, And it’s them who came to me, I never came to them. in fact here is what would have been the Q&A with OIN’s CEO:

Question: How would you quantify OIN’s growth over the past few years? In particular, what is the significance of the number of members and the sum of their patents?

Question: Does the OIN stand behind Tizen following Nokia’s apparent retreat from MeeGo? What about the rumoured new Linux-based platform from Nokia (for low-end phones)? Does the OIN have that covered? And what about WebOS?

Question: To what degree, if any, does the OIN assist Android in patent battles?

Question: How can the OIN facilitate feud prevention among its members, e.g. Oracle versus Google?

Question: How does the OIN conduct its cause politically (if at all)?

Question: How does the OIN plan to counter threat from entities such as Mosaid? If reactionary means such as defensive patents cannot help, are antitrust complaints something the OIN can subscribe to (like the OSI and FSF did regarding CPTN)?

Suffice to say, if the OIN decides that it can answer these questions, I’ll be more than happy to post the answers. Previously, Keith explained to me on the phone that it was a PR failure that caused my questions not to be answered (after those were welcomed).