Lawsuit Raises Questions about Open Invention Network, Linux Foundation

I agree with Brian that the LinuxFoundation per se can't be expected to act as a peace broker. That's not its mission statement, although peace among its members would be in its own best interest.

Concerning the OIN, the article describes only one of its three functions and doesn't mention the other two.

Brian correctly notes that the OIN is "a patent holding company that buys up patents and, once purchased, grants licensees royalty-free rights to use [them]".

Brian doesn't mention that mutually assured destruction is also part of the OIN's mission. It wants to be able to assert those patents against entities attacking Linux. The OIN doesn't say so on its website, but it has indicated this in press releases and everyone in the industry who talked to OIN member companies will have been told that it should serve as a deterrent.

Even more importantly, Brian completely omits the fact that the OIN doesn't have only a bunch of patents and six owner companies but around 150 licensee companies. The OIN License Agreement constitutes a non-aggression pact among all licensees (not only the six "members", i.e. owners).

It is the OIN's plurilateral cross-licensing agreement that has failed here because both Google and Oracle have accepted it. So theoretically, Google and Oracle are prohibited under that agreement from suing each other (or other licensees) with respect to what the OIN calls "the Linux System."

It's absolutely incorrect that OIN only has the patents it acquires. It also constitutes a cross-license deal among its 150 licensees and, therefore, also relates to the patents that those companies hold with respect to what the OIN calls "the Linux System."