Talk:Open Invention Network

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Confusion

Open Invention Network seems a bit confused. The list a patent (7,155,739) which is also available for auction [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]