Talk:Open Invention Network

Confusion
Open Invention Network seems a bit confused. The list a patent (7,155,739) which is also available for auction by Ocean Tomo. So are they confused? Or is their list of patents inaccurate?--66.245.217.141 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The list of patents here does not contain the one you are speaking of any more. According to archive.org, that patent was added the same day that it was sold. Roshangeorge (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like editorial/advocacy, and has severe NPOV problems. It needs a thorough cleanup. -- Karada (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely, and have added an npov tag. The article reads almost like an OIN press release or advertisement, and omits or glosses over serious criticisms. The bias is evident in choices of headings (e.g. "Countering Microsoft Strategy for Feeding Patent Trolls"), the description of what it does as "Linux protection", and the lack of any negative views in the "Views on Open Invention Network" section, for instance.

The articles does briefly mention some of the cogent criticism by Florian Mueller, but it doesn't present any of his arguments, and even one of the references (the Dana Blankenhorn article) contains biased misreporting of what Mueller actually said. Note that Mueller has been proven absolutely correct in his point about the definition of "Linux system" here: because of the narrow scope of that definition, one OIN licensee (Oracle) has been able to sue another (Google) over part of its Linux platform that is not covered by the OIN agreement. In that case at least, OIN patently (excuse the pun) failed to do what it was supposedly set up to do.

(I suppose this article would also be subject to criticism from the pro-patent lobby. I won't speak for them ;-) --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Still looks really POV to me. Francis Davey (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

foundation, incorporation – contradictory dating?
I found an incorporation record from earlier than the previously stated date of foundation. Maybe someone can sort this out.--Reseletti (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)