|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Please consider subscribing to LWN

Subscriptions are the lifeblood of LWN.net. If you appreciate this content and would like to see more of it, your subscription will help to ensure that LWN continues to thrive. Please visit this page to join up and keep LWN on the net.

By Jake Edge
September 23, 2009

Keith Bergelt, CEO of the Open Invention Network (OIN), described the circumstances which led the company to recently purchase 22 Microsoft patents, as part of a talk at the first LinuxCon. While the circumstances surrounding that purchase were quite interesting—and indicative of Microsoft's patent strategy—he also described the mission of OIN as a protector of Linux from patent trolls. Because patents are likely to be a threat to Linux for a long time to come, organizations like OIN are needed to allow Linux development to continue with as few patent impediments as possible.

Linux Foundation (LF) executive director Jim Zemlin introduced Bergelt by noting that OIN had done a great service for the Linux industry and community by purchasing those patents, which otherwise would have gone to "non-operating" companies—essentially patent trolls. Bergelt caught wind of the sale and headed off what might have been a potent attack against Linux, Zemlin said.

OIN was started by six companies (Sony, IBM, NEC, Red Hat, Philips, and Novell) four years ago to anticipate and preempt these kinds of patent sales, Bergelt said. It is a "very unusual entity" and when he was approached to be the CEO, it took some time to understand the "active benevolence" that was the mission of OIN. The members put a "very significant amount of money" into OIN, which means that, unlike a pledge fund, the capital is available, allowing Bergelt the autonomy to make decisions about how to deploy it.

OIN licenses its patents for use by others, with the proviso that those companies not assert their patents against Linux. It is, essentially, a defensive patent pool for the entire Linux community.

He sees the mission of OIN as allowing Linux to "be beneficial, at a macro level, to economic growth", by reducing the patent threat. The most recent patents were purchased from Allied Security Trust (AST), which represents its 15 members (including three that Bergelt named: HP, Ericsson, and IBM) by buying patents, licensing them to the members, and then reselling the remaining rights on the open market. Bergelt contrasted AST and OIN, saying that the latter is not just representing the six companies who are its members, but is, instead, "representing society". In his view, "patents will continue to exist", so it is important to "ensure that they don't have a negative impact on Linux in the future".

Bergelt described Microsoft's patent suit against TomTom as being a part of the software giant's "totem strategy". By getting various companies to settle patent suits over particular patents, Microsoft can erect (virtual) totem poles in Redmond, creating a "presumption of patent relevance". According to Bergelt, Microsoft tends to attack those who try to create parity with it in some area, which TomTom did. But, TomTom had overextended itself with a large amount of debt from their acquisition of mapping company Tele Atlas. That made it an opportune time to put the squeeze on TomTom, which is exactly what Microsoft did.

But, Microsoft was surprised to find that TomTom had allies in the form of OIN and others. Originally, Microsoft had asked for an "astronomical" sum to settle the suit, but after TomTom joined OIN and countersued Microsoft, the settlement number became much smaller. In fact, it was small enough that it was not necessary to report the amount under Dutch securities regulations. Because the cost to defend a patent suit—even successfully—could be upwards of $14 million, the TomTom board really had no choice but to settle.

But, patent suits are generally fairly high-profile, and there are other means to attack Linux companies more quietly. One of those is to sell patents to "non-practicing" (or "non-operating") entities who have no other business besides patent litigation. These trolls do not have any products that could be the target of patent countersuits, which is a standard way of combating patent suits. Bergelt said that $20 billion has been spent this decade by multiple organizations to acquire patents for trolling.

Companies with large patent portfolios have been pressured by investors to use those patents to generate revenue. One way to do that is to sell them to trolls, which brings in money and insulates the company from actually bringing suit itself. In some cases, this has led to patent trolls attacking the customers of the company who originally held the patents, Bergelt said.

Over the last three years, OIN has been one of the three largest patent acquirers, so it could not have been an oversight that Microsoft did not approach OIN about buying these patents. The bundle of patents was expressly presented as being relevant to Linux, which has the effect of "pointing the troll in the right direction", according to Bergelt. He clearly indicated his belief that this was an attempt to attack Linux by proxy; Microsoft would have "plausible deniability" because they could claim they were sold to a defensive patent pool such as AST.

But, AST is required to resell the patents it acquires, after licensing them to its members, within 12 months of purchasing them. Normally it would sell them to trolls, but Bergelt was able to arrange a purchase by OIN. He noted that if you wanted to get patents to trolls, but keep your hands "clean", selling them to AST is the right way to do it. Going forward, though, there is a patent treaty forming between AST and OIN, which should help alleviate this particular problem in the future.

The Data Tern/Amphion patent suit against Red Hat, which was based on a relational database patent, was also noted by Bergelt as a successful defense of free software from a patent threat. Red Hat settled the suit on behalf of the community as a whole, rather than allow further suits against free software to be filed. Bergelt said that Data Tern/Amphion were "not anti-Linux", in contrast to Microsoft's intent, but were focused purely on the return on its investment in buying the patent.

Intellectual Ventures is an organization to keep an eye on, Bergelt said, as it has some 23,000 patents, more than any other non-practicing entity. Three weeks ago, it started selling some of its patents—to patent trolls. OIN is also approaching patent trolls to suggest that they contact OIN before suing Linux companies. In some cases, OIN has averted lawsuits by acquiring patent rights from trolls.

The 22 patents in question are listed on the OIN website, but they aren't separated from the rest of the patents that OIN has acquired. They were all issued to either Microsoft or SGI originally, though, Bergelt said, which should assist anyone wishing to study what the patents cover. He noted that they are not the OpenGL patents, as some thought, because those are believed not to read on Linux.

In addition to acquiring patents, OIN has several other projects that are meant to reduce the patent problems for Linux. Peer to patent and post-issue peer to patent are both meant to "crowdsource" the process of finding prior art for patents that are in process or those that have already been issued. The former is meant to help the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) so that bad patents don't get issued, while the latter looks for bad patents so that they can be submitted to the PTO for re-examination.

Defensive publications are another strategy that companies can take to protect their ideas without patenting them. OIN is advocating the use of defensive publication to create prior art, so that, in the best case, patents will not be granted covering those ideas. Instead of the "negative right" that is created with a patent, defensive publication creates something that everyone can use, but no one can patent. OIN's lawyers will review defensive publication submissions for free, making any necessary changes and then adding them to the IP.com database which is used for prior art searches by the PTO.

Companies who want to patent their ideas can also use defensive publication by patenting the core idea and wrapping that core with published information. This is happening more frequently because the cost of a patent application is becoming "prohibitive". OIN is encouraging the community to use defensive publications to protect its ideas as well.

Bergelt stressed that OIN is not set up as an anti-Microsoft organization, as they are focused on any entity threatening Linux with patents. In the most recent case that was Microsoft, but his expectation is that "Microsoft will go through a painful transition", but will eventually join the free software community. The benefits of free software development will be too strong to resist.

In closing, both Zemlin and Bergelt mentioned the Linux Defenders project, which is a joint venture between OIN, LF, and the Software Freedom Law Center. It is the umbrella organization for the peer to patent efforts along with the defensive publication initiative, but it also seeks to counsel companies who have been approached about patents that read on Linux. Zemlin noted that the traditional approach is to get a potential victim to sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before discussing the patents in question. He stressed that companies should get in touch with Linux Defenders before signing the NDA, as that seriously limits what help it can provide.

In response to questions from the audience, Bergelt noted that there is some hope for patent reforms, which may "narrow the space" for trolls to work in. Judges are starting to recognize the problem he said, but wholesale changes are not likely in the cards. In addition, he noted that even defining "non-practicing entity" is difficult, pointing to Qualcomm as an example of a company that was not very successful using its patents in products, but quite successful in licensing them to others.

He also sees hope at the PTO. Fewer poor patents are being issued and far fewer patents are being issued overall. Things are changing, but they will never be as good as we want them to be, he said.


(Log in to post comments)

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 23, 2009 16:55 UTC (Wed) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link]

This is enlightening, another reminder of why we subscribe to LWN. Until now MS's behavior in connection with these patents was a mystery, but now it all makes sense: yes, it really was an attack. We have strategic thinkers acting strategically on our behalf, and it feels good. Next time MS attacks, though, I suppose they will be less ham-handed about it.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 10:48 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

I had thought that the suit against TomTom was a defensive suit, because TomTom first threatened Microsoft with a software patent lawsuit. The source is this Slashdot comment which admittedly is not the most reliable news source. But it would have been better for the article to address this, whether confirming or denying it.

In my opinion, countersuing someone who sues (or threatens to sue) over a software patent is quite a different matter from aggressively using swpats against another company which has not fired first. Which of the two cases describes the TomTom VFAT settlement?

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 14:39 UTC (Thu) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link]

That coment is the only thing I've seen suggesting that Tomtom fired first. I find it very hard to believe (having contracted once for TomTom a few years ago and found them a very sound outfit, with really good technical people still at board level). Groklaw seems more likely to be right than random slashdot comments:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090320000835463

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 15:33 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

I didn't see anything in that Groklaw article saying that Microsoft's lawsuit wasn't in response to a patent threat from TomTom. (Not that it is Groklaw's job to refute every random theory floating around, but I don't see how the article you linked to is relevant here.)

You are most likely right about TomTom as a company; I knew they had fought Garmin in court but it appears that was defensive (see here for example).

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 15:57 UTC (Thu) by jhhaller (guest, #56103) [Link]

TomTom and Microsoft are likely to conflict over Sync by Microsoft in Ford vehicles. Since TomTom predates Sync, TomTom likely has earlier and broader patents. That doesn't say who started the dispute first, but where interests collided.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 27, 2009 22:59 UTC (Sun) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]

> I had thought that the suit against TomTom was a defensive suit, because
> TomTom first threatened Microsoft with a software patent lawsuit. The
> source is this Slashdot comment which admittedly is not the most reliable
> news source.

The parent comment to the one you linked to says otherwise and actually cites a source. Note that the comment you linked to provides nothing to back up their claim.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 28, 2009 10:55 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

That Reuters article <http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE52J1...> does not say one way or the other whether Microsoft threatened TomTom first, or whether TomTom started by threatening Microsoft with a software patent suit.

It just says 'The two companies had failed to reach a patent-licensing agreement after more than a year of talks.'

I would be interested to see some source that unambiguously states that Microsoft was the aggressor in this case, or on the other hand, one that unambiguously states that Microsoft sued only after being notified of software patent infringement by TomTom.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 28, 2009 14:03 UTC (Mon) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]

It says clearly in the first sentence that TomTom's filed a countersuit. A countersuit is a one that is filed in response to an initial suit. By definition that means that Microsoft sued first.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 28, 2009 14:34 UTC (Mon) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Yes, Microsoft filed a suit against TomTom. What I have heard is that TomTom first threatened Microsoft with a lawsuit for infringing on some software patents that TomTom held, and then Microsoft's suit against TomTom was a response to that threat. (The first stage in a patent shakedown is often to formally 'notify' the other party that they are infringing; that way, if they don't settle immediately they will be liable for triple damages for knowing infringement.)

That might be how it happened, or it might not be. But the article doesn't tell you one way or the other. It just tells you which of the two cases was first to court, which isn't very informative.

Patent numbers?

Posted Sep 24, 2009 0:33 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link]

Are the actual patent numbers available anywhere? It would be nice to see the details of what is covered.

Patent numbers?

Posted Sep 30, 2009 11:32 UTC (Wed) by codepope (guest, #54022) [Link]

Sure, if I can publicise myself, Patently Opaque contains all 22 patents listed and comments from AST

The problem with OIN

Posted Sep 24, 2009 1:06 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]

Most of the principal OIN members are big believers in software patents, have strong software patent portfolios, and want to extend patents everywhere (Red Hat's an exception). They have an interest in protecting Linux, but they also have an interest in growing their software patent positions.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 1:08 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

One thought which occurs to me more and more strongly as time goes by: Given that all of these things - patents, onerous copyright laws, the DMCA, intrusions into people's privacy, etc - are considerably more difficult to roll back than they are to introduce, especially once enough people have enough invested... are we approaching a point at which humanity has backed itself into so many corners that it can't legally do anything at all? And if so, how do we extricate ourselves from under the weight of law, without sacrificing the rule of law?

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 2:23 UTC (Thu) by seanMcGrath (guest, #1563) [Link]

It is a political problem. Until law makers serve the social good instead of
highest bidder, bad laws will continue to be passed.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 4:01 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Have you *seen* some of the laws passed in keen pursuit of "social good"...?

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 5:08 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Have you *seen* some of the laws passed in keen pursuit of "highest bidder"...?

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 16:54 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]

I seem to remember that about a decade ago the Hungarian Parliament discussed an act about telecommunication (I believe it was the LXV. act from 1997). Totally different parties happened to submit the same text, which also seemed to come from various telecommunication companies. This act seems to fit the laws passed in keen pursuit of "highest bidder". By the way, this act is mostly about the interworking of the communication (e.g. mobile telephone) networks.

On the other hand the XXV. act from 1920 was clearly made for the "social good". It essentially created an upper limit for the number or Jewish students at various universities.

I'm a lot more suspicious of people who're "working for the social good" than those those who're simply selfish.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 17:19 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

It is easy and lazy to cherry pick single examples, or to assume "social good" and "highest bidder" are mutually exclusive.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 25, 2009 0:03 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

I believe government officials usually pass laws for social good, following their honest opinion of what is best for society. Narrow minded people who have a different opinion like to ascribe the difference to evilness on the other guy's part.

I also believe that what the highest bidder wants is usually for the social good. That's because the highest bidder got the money for the bid from society, which gave it to the bidder voluntarily in exchange for what the bidder gives them.

Lobbyists do write legislation, which is then signed by legislators, and there's nothing suspicious about that. It doesn't imply the legislator sponsored the legislation for any reason other than that he personally believes every word of it is best for society. It does mean that the cost of creating legislation is being borne by the segments of society that benefit from it the most.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 25, 2009 6:29 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Ah, the innocence. It's so sweet.

(Hint: sometimes -- often -- lobbyists like to write laws so that they can
get special advantages or privileges from those laws. That's pretty much
where the word privilege originated.)

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 25, 2009 8:33 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (guest, #1954) [Link]

sometimes -- often -- lobbyists like to write laws so that they can get special advantages or privileges from those laws.

You have to go further than that, because a lobbyist can only draft the law. For it to take effect, he has not only to get someone else to sponsor it, but often hundreds of other people to vote for it. So you have to be way more cynical and propose that all the legislators somehow get special benefits -- bribes, I guess -- at the expense of society. And assuming you don't believe you and your friends are so immoral, you have to believe that legislators are cut from a different cloth from the rest of us, and if legislators are elected, that requires even more cynicism because it means the evil bastards somehow fool millions of people, generation after generation, into not recognizing them for the thieves that they are.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 25, 2009 13:41 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Your sarcasm is a welcome relief. I am glad someone here injected some levity into this way off-topic thread.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 26, 2009 4:40 UTC (Sat) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

Wow. My point just went right over your head, didn't it?

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 26, 2009 5:38 UTC (Sat) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]

Oh please. This thread has gone way off topic. LWN is not the place for political discussions. You can't fairly claim to be the only one making sarcastic comments when you don't even recognize it yourself.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 26, 2009 21:19 UTC (Sat) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

> You can't fairly claim to be the only one making sarcastic comments

I didn't even claim to be making sarcastic comments. I didn't reply to your mention of sarcasm.

I am amused at the concept of your passing judgement on a thread you have demonstrated an incapacity to even follow. Amused enough to have gone back, temporarily, on my previous decision to ignore you.

And it's not even a long thread! *sigh*

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 2:54 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

Same as always. Lobbying, civil disobedience, armed resistance, terrorism, civil war or starting society from scratch after a global disaster like nuclear war/meteor impact.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 4:02 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link]

So, there's no way then.

Take it from here

Posted Sep 24, 2009 6:28 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

You can always start with "lobbying".

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 24, 2009 8:27 UTC (Thu) by k3ninho (subscriber, #50375) [Link]

>Defensive publications are another strategy that companies can take to protect their ideas without patenting them. OIN is advocating the use of defensive publication to create prior art, so that, in the best case, patents will not be granted covering those ideas. Instead of the "negative right" that is created with a patent, defensive publication creates something that everyone can use, but no one can patent. OIN's lawyers will review defensive publication submissions for free, making any necessary changes and then adding them to the IP.com database which is used for prior art searches by the PTO.

You still need to lobby for change in U.S. Patent Law on this: despite the defensive publication there is still a year-long grace period in which another party may have come up with the thing before applying for a patent for the method you've made publicly available.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 27, 2009 14:03 UTC (Sun) by kleptog (subscriber, #1183) [Link]

Indeed, I was wondering how they were going to deal with that. Someone could just go to that site, copy every idea and submit a patent application claiming they did it first.

I thought there was some progress is getting the US onto a first to file system, but apparently it hasn't gone anywhere.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 27, 2009 23:05 UTC (Sun) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link]

First to file would be truly terrible. Imagine being sued for infringing on a patent for technology you've invented just because someone else got to the patent office first.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Sep 27, 2009 23:28 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

the real fix for that problem is to consider multiple applications for the same invention to be proof that that invention isn't unobvious enough to those skilled in the field and deny all such applications.

LinuxCon: Keeping open source open

Posted Oct 4, 2009 0:01 UTC (Sun) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

The rest of the world is fine with "first to file". It also works on the basis of "any disclosure before filing is prior art".

So if somebody else patents something I'm already doing, and I've made no secret of what I'm doing, their patent is dead. "Your patent is dated 1st October. Here's an article describing my process dated 30th September. Please Mr Judge, Prior Art, I can't be violating his patent. Summary judgement, please".

And that really would be that.

Cheers,
Wol

No angle on the European situation?

Posted Sep 24, 2009 12:33 UTC (Thu) by ber (subscriber, #2142) [Link]

What about software-patents in other parts of the world? What about the possible effects on GNU/Linux? The US-situation seems to be a heavy disadvantage especially for people there.

Helping to invalidate patents is helping the pro-patent lobby in my view. One main argument for patent is that they would be harmless if it wasn't for the bad, trivial patents. This holds on to the idea that just evaluation of patent applications needs fixing - not the system itself.

BTW: It would be really interesting to make the distinction between Linux (the famous kernel) and operating systems based on it and their components. Does OIN also protect the other Free Software components within a operating system, e.g. the C-library or is it only about the kernel?

No angle on the European situation?

Posted Sep 24, 2009 19:32 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

It's more than just the kernel. OIN has a list of software

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_linuxdefpop.html

Imaginary market

Posted Sep 24, 2009 21:49 UTC (Thu) by rwmj (subscriber, #5474) [Link]

It's just worth noting that this is an entirely imaginary market, in imaginary property, enforced because our [Western] governments enforce it.

It's not real, and by voting against it, we can get rid of it entirely... It will disappear in a puff of imaginary smoke.

Rich.

Imaginary market

Posted Sep 25, 2009 6:33 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link]

Not a very convincing argument IMHO. Imaginary markets are all around us: from stock markets to securities to currency exchanges to brands to actual, down-to-Earth patents. All existing only because they are enforced by our governments. If we were to do away with them we would be left with gold, coffee and real estate markets -- and even then most of the raw material that changes hands nowadays is never seen either by the buyer or the seller.

Better center on the consequences (perceived and actual) of this particular imaginary market.


Copyright © 2009, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds