OSNews

All we need now is for Google to go Super Saiyan.

LOLOL!

Hmm... I wonder if there is a connection to a certain encrypted unicorn-porn folder. It seems to follow along those lines :p

They were competitors in 1984, and that was it. After the UI case was dealt with, they’ve been playing very different games that have come to converge with Google the clear common threat between them. Expect much chumming up between these three.

Very true. While that mentality ended some time ago one must remember that any other business that competes with another, and who's existence and products take away from the others potential profits, is viewed at as "the enemy." Just the way it is...

I don't see the relationship over time between MS and Apple as being particularly clear-cut as competitor or (for want of a better word) ally. Usually they're both at the same time.

Certainly back in 1984 things were far from simple. Apple considered Microsoft back then to both be a competitor with respect to operating systems, but also an important ally for applications. Indeed Microsoft had early access to the Macintosh to develop applications for it.

Apple's relationship with Google today is I believe similarly complex. They are both competitors and allies. They compete on iOS vs. Android and cooperate on WebKit.

The relationships between all of these players are complicated. They all cooperate and compete at the same time.

or produce more compelling products to compete better with google? Going to war instead of competing is bad news, especially since there are rules of business. So far google is the one who's done the least in breaking those rules of business.

they could even be patents for basic OS functionality that could be going on at the core of Android or bla bla bla. as systems get more and more complex they continually increase the chances of stepping on the toes of other patents and bla bla bla. they could have just wanted them so that google couldn't have them or, if google isn't infringing on any of them, have them in hopes that they might become relevant.

my guess is MS knows whats in there (since they have been working quite a bit with Novel over the last few years (and before, *wink wink*), talked to apple and oracle and laid out a game plan, and likely helped broker the Novel sale to begin with. It seems to me this has all been laid out and executed fairly precisely and I think there is more going on than we know. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next, but I bet you at least a few of those patents MS was eager to get...

ChromeOS maybe ?

You may call it such, but this kind of stuff happens all the time. These guys talk and meet up more than most would think. Those in power work together to stay in power and keep the industry going where they want. Sure it sounds conspiracy theory like, but it happens a lot.

You misunderstand what OIN is (maybe Groklaw does as well, I can't say as I've not read their stuff).

OIN owns patents donated to it by it's members. It does not own or license all patents held by it's members. It's fair to say none of those Novell patents that were purchased are owned by OIN (otherwise they would not be Novell's to sell).

The patent list OIN owns is here ...
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_owned.php

]{

Again, someone voted this down...
"DUDE, that's a bummer!"
"But... it's a fact."
"SHUT UP!"
is how I imagine this would have gone afk.

Problem is ... it wasn't a fact.

Ok, "in lieu of providing facts"

I don't understand what you mean.

Here are the facts:
1. The poster kristoph who was voted down claimed this:


Well, that last paragraph was correct, but it very much missed the point.

Here is what OIN gets its members and licensees to agree to when they join:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license.php

It is right there in plain sight on OIN's webpage.

You see, I didn't misunderstand at all ... the poster kristoph who was voted down was the one who actually misunderstood.

The patents related to Linux held by OIN's members and licensees are all licensed royalty free to each other, in perpetuity.

Groklaw was correct.

The OP (kristoph) misunderstood the extent to which the OIN is what its own title claims it to be ... the OIN is indeed an Open Invention Network. All OIN members and licensees end up having a royalty-free license to use all Linux-related patents of the whole group.

That is a lot of patents they all have a license to.

Anyway, the point stands. Google is an OIN licensee. Google is listed amongst the "community of OIN licensees".

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php

Novell is listed not only as a licensee, but as a founding member.

That in turn means means that Google already has a license, in perpetuity, to use any Linux-related patent that may be within the set of 882 Novell patents sold to CPTN Holdings.

OIN doesn't own those 882 patents, nor does Google (Novell used to own them) ... but nevertheless all OIN members and licensees have a license (IOW they have permission) to use those patents. In perpetuity. This will remain so even after Novell sells the patents to CPTN Holdings.

In turn, I'm afraid that fact makes nonsense of the speculation in the original article, which said:


Of course Google will be able to withstand this: Google already holds a license for those patents (if any are related to Linux). If there are patents amongst the 882 which are not related to Linux, then they cannot be used to attack Google over Android.

What is surprising to me is that I already sent Thom an article linking to this finding posted on Groklaw. Thom must be more than a bit embarrased if he has just now realised what it meant.

I'm sorry to say it Thom, but all this makes you look very much like a red-painted girly scout.

Edited 2010-12-17 12:44 UTC

*headdesk*

Apparently I need to present you with the entire orthography of that, as your ability to detect drollery seems to be impaired.

The person who clicked upon the downward-pointing phalange also had the option of presenting us a similar set of facts to those you presented, but they failed to do so, out of cowardice, or sloth.

I've presented the facts in a precise manner, whether or not _you_ need a dictionary. I hope not, but considering the fact that I had to write that at all, I have my doubts...

OIN does own some patents in its own right (it buys them using donated funding).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network


Your list:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_owned.php
... I can't say if OIN actually purchased all of these, or if some were simply donated directly, but OIN owns them now.

Other patents (owned by members, not owned by OIN) are licensed by OIN members to each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network


Groklaw's understanding, as explained to PJ when she contacted the OIN:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101206205654916&query=88...


OIN's understanding:
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license.php



As far as I can tell, Wikipedia, Groklaw and the OIN all understand it fine, and it is you who have misunderstood.

Edited 2010-12-17 06:20 UTC

Really?
You're really surprised?

I'd have been surprised had this _not_ come to light at some point.

In the case of OpenBSD.. all we need now is.. *evidence*.. that the claims of a backdoor are true.. It being open source, you'll also get the details of, if true, how a malicious developer could inject and maintain hidden code in OpenBSD's source tree.. that and confirm if other project management processes are also at risk.

Until the investigation is finished, you can run about waving the OpenBSD rumor around as fact proof positive, I'll wait for some supporting evidence to corroborate the claims of a random email.

At this point, nothing has been found:

http://extendedsubset.com/?p=41

True enough.

It doesn't matter though who ends up with the patents as far as Google and Android are concerned, Google already has a license for them (at least, those of the 882 patents related to Linux).

Incidentally, any company which joins OIN by the 23rd of January will also gain a license to use any of the Linux-related patents.

Since the only cost to join the OIN is to undertake not to sue any other OIN members or licensees over Linux, and joining OIN gives one a perpetual royalty-free license to all of the Linux-related patents of all of the OIN members and licensees, that seems like a tremendously good deal to me.

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php

There are a lot of Linux-related patents held by that group collectively.

Edited 2010-12-17 12:54 UTC

It can and has paid for the lawyers.

This company just tried (and probably will, considering the level of corruption in the US patent system) to patent 'shareable apps'.

Considering the visual they presented, it consists of paying for something (is the exchange of money really a neccessary step here?) downloading a program, sending it via a third party to another person, who can do the same, and at some point someone else pays for something... That's called... the Internet.
_that's_ an offensive action, because I'm offended.

The key thing to note is who copies who.

Apple is the most copied and imitated company in the tech world.

Apple clearly wants to protect itself, it's intellectual property and to position itself to be able to resist offensive legal attacks by competitors who cannot compete with it in the market.

But it doesn't need the law or lawyers to beat it's competitors, it's already doing that and doing so by a big margin.

"Apple is the most copied and imitated company in the tech world."

which is why everyone copied them after they invented the personal mp3 player.. then copied them after they invented the smartphone.. not to mention copying them after they where first to invent the table form factor and netbook..

most copied.. my ass

After the Mac all PCs ended up looking like a Mac. PCs didn't copy Xerox they copied Apple's product (i.e. the one that sold in quantity).

Apple invented the mp3 player that people wanted. If Apple had not got a patent protection on the click wheel all mp3 players would have click wheels.

After the iPhone other phones started to look like the iPhone. The Android changed its previous design for Android following the iPhone launch to look like the iPhone.

This is what Android looked like in 2007.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/12/a-visual-tour-of-androids-ui/

Here’s an actual hardware prototype from then.

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/android-hardware-in-the-wild/google-andr...

It didn’t look anything like an iPhone, nor like anything Apple would ever be interested in making. It looked like a BlackBerry or Windows Mobile phone — hardware keyboards and non-touch screens.

Now compare a 2010 Android design to a current iPhone.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/19/droid-incredible-review/

Don’t tell me the iPhone has not completely reshaped the design and UI of smart phones.

After Apple launched the iPad all other tablets (or at least the ones with a chance of selling in any quantity - i.e. not Windows 7 tablets) started to look and function like the iPad.

Yet.. in all those cases.. Apple copied someone else. The company is fantastic at designing products.

They are experts at looking at an existing market then delivering a refined product based on lessons from all the other existing products. Trying to cast them as the victim always copied from is a bit weak though.

There was nothing available in the market remotely like the iPhone before Apple created it. With that single phone launch Apple remade the phone industry and redefined what a phone could do. Every smart phone since has just been trying (and failing) to catch up. Mostly by copying iPhone.

Try comparing PalmOS to iOS. The similarities are so striking it's almost like Apple... Xeroxed it.

One of the patents with which Nokia are suing Appple is a patent for the "swipe" gesture which is so much a part of the iOS user interface. Another one is the "app store".

http://politicallyillustrated.com/index.php?/lpnh/2057/


Just fyi.

It hasn't. There is zero innovative about Apple. You've fallen under the RDF so prevalent around Steve Jobs.

Fact is that everything ever done by Apple ever merely being refined copies of the hard work done by others before them, hailing small modifications as major breakthroughs, new variations on existing technologies as turning points and so on. Apple is simply one big hyperbole. You also forget all the production problems with the iPhone and all the usability flaws - but they don't fit in your perfect Appleworld, do they?

Aahh.. The Mac-fascists came around again. A wonder these zealots are.

"most likely to copy company" is more accurate.

And Apple have themselves copied the inventions of Xerox PARC, Microsoft (yes, copying goes both way between those), Palm, Archos, and many others...

Innovation does not come from nowhere. Any "new" product is just a slightly improved version of an already existing product, with new features brought from other already existing products. Human imagination is based on exterior inspiration, you can't get around this basic fact.

You're basically advocating that at some point, Apple made the "final" product and thus got some intellectual property on it, that it should be illegal to copy what they do from that point. That's horribly wrong. In fact, that's the core failure of the copyright/patent system : copyrights and patents which last too long end up being a tool against the innovation which they're supposed to promote.

These should last at most 5 years, nothing more.

Otherwise, if I code a simple operating system, I'm sure I'm already infringing on something silly like "Switching an AMD or Intel CPU to 64-bit mode" or "Loading a computer program from an optical storage medium". The sole thing which protects me from being sued is that I'm not a major actor in the OS market and no one has an interest in suing me.

Edited 2010-12-19 09:09 UTC