<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Software Patents Clubs: Open Innovation Networks is back on stage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/10/24/software-patents-clubs-open-innovation-networks-is-back-on-stage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/10/24/software-patents-clubs-open-innovation-networks-is-back-on-stage/</link>
	<description>“equally critical of proprietary and open source myths, advocating software choice beyond marketing and romanticism”</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:31:08 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Boycott Novell &#187; Patent System Status in the United States, European Union</title>
		<link>http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/10/24/software-patents-clubs-open-innovation-networks-is-back-on-stage/comment-page-1/#comment-602522</link>
		<dc:creator>Boycott Novell &#187; Patent System Status in the United States, European Union</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/10/24/software-patents-clubs-open-innovation-networks-is-back-on-stage/#comment-602522</guid>
		<description>[...] a follow-up post from Roberto, more details are given.  Keith says that in OIN’s vision there are “good” patents and “bad” patents, and they [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a follow-up post from Roberto, more details are given.  Keith says that in OIN’s vision there are “good” patents and “bad” patents, and they [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PL Hayes</title>
		<link>http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/10/24/software-patents-clubs-open-innovation-networks-is-back-on-stage/comment-page-1/#comment-601687</link>
		<dc:creator>PL Hayes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:14:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://robertogaloppini.net/2008/10/24/software-patents-clubs-open-innovation-networks-is-back-on-stage/#comment-601687</guid>
		<description>Right... so it's just a patent pool with a misleadingly grandiose name (Open &lt;em&gt;Invention&lt;/em&gt; Network), set up for the benefit of companies using “the Linux operating system or certain Linux-related applications”. 

Some of those companies lobbied for codification of the EPO's software patent granting practices so it's not surprising OIN won't take part in the debate and it is clearly no friend of FOSS and innovation in general, contrary to the impression it sometimes gives.

And given its constituency and statements such as “&lt;i&gt;Without the benefit of the exclusive rights conveyed by patents, it would be difficult to justify the risks inherent in the inventive process where substantial time or cost is involved.&lt;/i&gt;” etc. it seems likely its contribution to the debate would consist of reiteration of familiar fallacies and economically illiterate nonsense, so its absence is no bad thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right&#8230; so it&#8217;s just a patent pool with a misleadingly grandiose name (Open <em>Invention</em> Network), set up for the benefit of companies using “the Linux operating system or certain Linux-related applications”. </p>
<p>Some of those companies lobbied for codification of the EPO&#8217;s software patent granting practices so it&#8217;s not surprising OIN won&#8217;t take part in the debate and it is clearly no friend of FOSS and innovation in general, contrary to the impression it sometimes gives.</p>
<p>And given its constituency and statements such as “<i>Without the benefit of the exclusive rights conveyed by patents, it would be difficult to justify the risks inherent in the inventive process where substantial time or cost is involved.</i>” etc. it seems likely its contribution to the debate would consist of reiteration of familiar fallacies and economically illiterate nonsense, so its absence is no bad thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
