Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2010/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:15:43+00:00

Document:
It's official: Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen's Interval Licensing can be added to the long list of patent holders asserting their rights against Google's Android mobile operating system.
In late August I blogged about Interval's patent infringement suit against multiple defendants including Apple and Google. On 10 December 2010, the US District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the original suit for lack of "sufficient factual detail" concerning the alleged infringements (particularly, the accused products and services) and set a 28 December 2010 deadline for an amended suit.
Some commentators overrated the relevance of that decision. It happens all the time that plaintiffs try to get away with broad and vague allegations at this stage of the game (i.e., before discovery). If their allegations are too unspecific, they will be told to do their homework. It's unrelated to the merits of the case.
For example, in an ITC investigation against Apple, Nokia needed three attempts to withdraw its infringement claims concerning one of its patents (for details see page 19 of the PDF document in my previous post). Apple didn't even oppose Nokia's desire to do so, but the Administrative Law Judge in charge of the case felt that Nokia's first two motions lacked some information required by the ITC. So let's always separate formal shortcomings from actual weakness.
After the dismissal of Interval's original complaint, spokesperson for Paul Allen confirmed immediately that the company was going to refile an amended suit with more specific allegations. And so it did yesterday (just in time before the deadline). The Seattle Times reported on the refiling and linked to the amended complaint.
44. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 4, 8, 11, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of the ’652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use devices containing the Android Operating System and associated software such as Text Messaging, Google Talk, Google Voice, and Calendar. Devices containing the Android Operating System and associated software infringe by displaying information including, e.g., text messages, Google Voice messages, chat messages, and calendar events, to a user of a mobile device in an unobtrusive manner that occupies the peripheral attention of the user. For example, as demonstrated by Exhibit 24, when a user receives a new Google Voice message, the Android Operating System and Google Voice software display a notification in the status bar screen for a short period of time.
The relevant patent is US Patent No. 6,034,652 on an "attention manager for occupying the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device".
54. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 of the ’314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, distributing, and encouraging customers to use devices containing the Android Operating System and associated software such as Text Messaging, Google Talk, Google Voice, and Calendar, and by making and using the hardware and software that operate the Android and Android Market infrastructure. Google’s infringement of the ’314 patent that relates to Android results from substantially the same activities as its infringement of the ’652 patent, described above in [paragraph] 44.
The '314 patent is US Patent No. 6,788,314 and has the same title as the aforementioned '652 patent. The '314 patent is a continuation of a continuation of the patent application that resuled in the '652 patent.
If any of those infringement assertions against Android is true, this can spell trouble for makers of Android-based devices, and for Android application developers. The two paragraphs I quoted state clearly that the alleged infringement is an issue of "devices containing the Android Operating System", and the "Android Market infrastructure" is mentioned in the same context.
Patent holders can choose to sue Google, device makers, application developers, users, or any combination of the foregoing options. Most patent infringement suits related to Android target only device makers such as Motorola and HTC, but Interval Licensing is one of four right holders to sue Google directly. The others are Oracle, and Gemalto. Interval and Oracle could opt at any time to file suits against Android device makers, such as for the purpose to increase the pressure on Google. Gemalto and Vertical went after Google as well as some leading manufacturers.
Should Google be served an injunction as a result of Interval's suit, owners of Android phones (a group that includes me, by the way) would experience a very significant degradation of the user experience. Android's usability is generally under threat now because Apple already asserts various user interface (particularly multi-touch) patents against HTC and Motorola, and in its latest claims against Motorola, Microsoft also asserted a couple of touchscreen patents.
As I just mentioned Apple, it's also among the defendants named by Interval Licensing, but the infringement assertions don't target the iOS operating system. They relate to content recommendations provided to users by iTunes, the App Store, and Apple TV.
Was this the last smartphone patent suit for this year? It may have been, but not necessarily. A year ago, Nokia filed two complaints against Apple on the 29th of December.
Android is plagued by patent infringement suits like no other mobile platform, but in terms of a dispute between two companies, Apple vs. Nokia is the most advanced patent conflict at this stage. It started in October 2009 with a suit by Nokia that provoked counterclaims by Apple, which resulted in another suit by Nokia, and counterclaims, and so forth -- simply put, big-time escalation. Recently the parties also started a series of suits in Europe.
This week I got the impression that high tech companies -- especially if they're in the smartphone business -- now send each other patent suits instead of Christmas cards. Yesterday (23 December 2010) was particularly eventful, with heavyweights Microsoft and Motorola trading some additional patent infringement allegations.
Prior to this week, that dispute already involved 9 Microsoft patents, 17 Motorola patents, 3 US District Courts and complaints with the US International Trade Commission. Now we're talking about a total of 35 patents-in-suit (16 Microsoft patents and 19 Motorola patents). Motorola filed a new suit in the Western District of Wisconsin (where it previously filed two other ones) over 3 patents (one of which it previously asserted in another case, so the net gain is +2), and Microsoft made counterclaims in the Southern District of Florida, alleging the infringement of 7 of its patents.
Both companies have also expanded the range of products they accuse of infringing their patents. In its new suit, Motorola tries to attack the Kinect. In the aforementioned counterclaims, Microsoft asserts not only five patents against Android phones (just like it did before) but also two patents against Motorola set-top boxes with DVR functionality.
It's also worth noting that two of the seven patents added by Microsoft cover important touchscreen functionalities: US Patent No. 6,791,536 on "simulating gestures of a pointing device using a stylus and providing feedback thereto" and US Patent No. 6,897,853 on a "highlevel active pen matrix". While those patents were originally applied for in connection with "pointing devices" such as a stylus, they appear to cover user interface technologies that are nowadays most relevant in connection with touchscreens. Apple already asserts various touchscreen patents against Motorola (and other companies).
I previously produced two other visualizations (using consistent colors for the various companies). On Scribd I have created a collection of files describing smartphone patent disputes, to which I will soon add some new ones, including a visualization of the epic battle between Nokia and Apple.
For now, I wish you all a Happy (and Peaceful) Holiday Season!
Yesterday I just reported on a patent infringement suit filed by Multimedia Patent Trust, an Alcatel-Lucent subsidiary, against Apple, LG, Canon and TiVo. The four patents-in-suit are related to video codecs. And here's an audio patent suit: Hybrid Audio LLC of Tyler, Texas, filed a suit yesterday with the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Apple, HTC and Dell over US. Patent No. RE40,281 on "Signal processing utilizing a tree-structured array". The patent-in-suit is a reissue of a patent that was applied for in 1997: US Patent No. 6,252,909 on a "multi-carrier transmission system utilizing channels of different bandwidth".
Allegedly, the defendants infringe that patent with various products "that contain or use hardware and/or software for processing audio information in accordance with the MPEG-1 Layer III (MP3) standard."
I've tried to find out more about that company and will add new information here as it becomes available. Hybrid Audio LLC of Tyler, Texas, isn't necessarily -- and at first sight not too likely to be -- related to Hybrid Audio Technologies of Atlanta, Georgia.
Instead, I found out that the reissue patent (application filed on 23 November 2004) and the original patent (application filed on 25 February 1997) were assigned to Aware, Inc. of Bedford, Massachussetts, a company trading on NASDAQ under the AWRE ticker symbol.
That company claims to have focused at least for a certain period of time on "wavelet mathematics applications, digital compression, and telecommunications and channel modulation and coding".
It's not surprising if a company like that obtained an allegedly MP3-related patent. What's unclear for now is whether Aware is behind Hybrid Audio LLC or sold its patent to that entity (directly or indirectly) some time ago. Aware did sell off some assets in the past, and this patent may or may not have been part of such transactions. In the USPTO database, Aware is still listed as the assignee of the patent, but that information may be outdated. There could have been one or more transactions that haven't been reflected in the USPTO database, at least not yet.
Hybrid Audio LLC's complaint looks like the company doesn't believe there are any commitsment in place concerning that patent and the MP3 standard. There's a request for an injunction and no reference to reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing commitments.
The MP3-related infringement allegation I quoted is very broad. The complaint, however, focuses on a smaller number of specifically accused products: the Android-based HTC Evo 4G smartphone; Apple's iPod nano, iPhone 4, iPad, MacBook Pro, and iTunes; and Dell's Inspiron desktops, Studio desktops, Alienware desktops, Inspiron laptops, Adamo laptops, XPS laptops, Alienware laptops, Streak pocket tablet, and Android-based Aero smartphone.
The video codec suit I analyzed yesterday also targeted, besides Apple's iPhone, some Android-based devices. And again, smartphones based on Windows Phone 7 are not affected.
I became aware of this new suit through Priorsmart's daily newsletter that lists new patent suits. If you're also interested in subscribing to it, here's an invitation. I find it really useful.
Overview of smartphone-related ITC investigations: who complains against whom over which products?
On Friday (17 December 2010), the US International Trade Commission announced the launch of an investigation "of certain gaming and entertainment consoles, related software, and components thereof" based on a complaint filed by Motorola against Microsoft four weeks earlier. I commented on that complaint at the time. All comparable complaints have also given rise to investigations, so this isn't a major milestone. Anything else would have been a big surprise.
The ITC usually takes about four weeks before launching an investigation, so this was the last smartphone-related ITC proceeding to start in 2010. More filings are still possible, however. For example, Nokia complained against Apple on 29 December 2009.
Actually, Motorola's complaint against Microsoft is only indirectly smartphone-related: it's just about the Xbox 360 gaming console, but it's part of a wider dispute between the two parties that started with Microsoft's complaints against Motorola on 01 October 2010 -- and those complaints related to Motorola's Android-based smartphones.
I focused on the ones in which both the complainant and the respondent are major players. Even between those big organizations, many more suits have been filed with US federal courts as well as -- more recently -- a few in Europe (between Apple and Nokia), but the ITC is particularly important because it generally decides more quickly than district courts. I previously wrote about its role as a patent enforcement agency.
If it isn't displayed above, you can also find the overview document on this Scribd page).
The accused products are important to consider. The chart shows that some companies have a large number of products under attack, some even by two or more right holders. By contrast, Microsoft only has to fend off a complaint involving the Xbox.
Concerning the colors I chose for the different companies, I explained my reasoning in this posting two weeks ago. At the time I published a visualization of Apple's disputes with Android-based device makers HTC and Motorola (all disputes, not only ITC investigations).
And now just imagine what it would mean for the US market if all of the accused products were banned by the ITC. It's unbelievable, but not impossible.
Breaking news: Twitter user @VM_gville (whose account has meanwhile disappeared) pointed me to the website of the German federal antitrust authority ("Bundeskartellamt"), which discloses a merger (or more precisely, joint venture) notification filed a week ago (on 09 December 2010), according to which the four companies behind CPTN Holdings LLC -- the acquirer of 882 Novell patents -- are Microsoft, Apple, EMC, and Oracle. The product market in which the newly formed company plans to operate is defined as "patents".
Just like many people, I was certainly curious as to which companies were Microsoft's partners in this new organization. The group could have consisted of Microsoft plus several considerably smaller companies. But this impressive list of companies shows that Microsoft's partners are very powerful players themselves, true counterweights without a doubt.
When I commented on the original announcement, I wrote that "it's certain that the decisions of the consortium will not be taken by Microsoft singlehandedly. That fact should actually give a lot of comfort even to those who don't want to trust Redmond."
Now that the other companies are known to be such major players, I can only reiterate what I wrote then. I don't know much about EMC other than that it's a very significant company. I do know that Apple and Oracle are clearly companies who have different approaches to some important issues than Microsoft. Within the consortium, the four players will have to agree on a common denominator concerning the patents to be acquired. They've apparently been able to agree that those patents are valuable assets to own. I still don't know the list of those patents, but it's important progress that we now have the names of the companies, thanks to the German competition authority.
I don't have a crystal ball that would tell me what their business plan with those patents is, but those organizations have a track record and, very importantly, they have a reputation to protect. They all want to enjoy excellent relations with software developers, and software developers expect large players to make reasonable and constructive use of whatever patents they own. I guess that's exactly what will happen in this case.
[Update] AllThingsD quotes an anonymous source inside one of the four companies describing this patent deal as "cheap defensive insurance".
Last week, Google's hopes of settling Oracle's Java patent suit on sweet terms were dealt important blows on two fronts.
One part of the bad news for Google is that a Federal Circuit ruling indicates software patents still can't be invalidated categorically on the grounds of "abstract" subject matter, a defense Google's answer to Oracle's amended complaint emphasized rather aggressively.
The other key development is the Apache Software Foundation's divorce from the Oracle-led Java Community Process (the Java standard-setting process). It's time to forget about possible concessions by Oracle to the open source community from which Google could indirectly benefit (since its Dalvik virtual machine is derived from a part of Apache's Harmony project).
Before I go into more detail on those latest developments, I'd like to reiterate an observation I already shared last month: unlike the other defendants in major smartphone patent cases, Google still hasn't countersued Oracle for infringement. Meanwhile, four months have passed since Oracle's lawsuit. Other defendants struck back within about two months, in some cases within one month. It's ever less likely that Google will do so. I guess it just can't.
All of this doesn't bode too well for Google and its Android mobile operating system.
The number 101 connects Google and Oracle in two different ways. From the Googleplex in Mountain View, the fastest route to Oracle (Redwood Shores) is to take Highway 101 North. But § 101 of US patent law (35 U.S.C.) isn't the fast track to the invalidation of Oracle's Java patents that Google would like it to be, or that it would like the open source community to believe that it is.
I pointed out in a previous post that I couldn't see much of a point in Google's "abstract subject matter" defense (which it redundantly repeated), other than pandering to impressionable parts of the open source community who may be led to believe Google fights against software patents in general.
There are a few notorious disinformers out there who portray the US Supreme Court's Bilski opinion as the (potential or actual) beginning of the end for software patents. Contrary to what those propagandists claim (I doubt they even believe it themselves), that ruling (handed in June 2010) didn't do anything to turn US software patents into an endangered species. It was a decision in favor of continuity and a patent system that expands as technology evolves.
Google makes an unambiguous reference to the "abstract [...] subject matter" part of Bilski but there's no particular reason to assume that Oracle's Java patents would be non-statutory on that basis, or that such a defense would be stronger post-Bilski than it used to be pre-Bilski.
To me, the fact that Bilski didn't move the goalposts was immediately clear. I've spent a lot of time discussing substantive patent law with politicians and experts, so I can tell when a position on patent-eligible subject matter is liberal (such as Bilski) or restrictive. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, a markedly open-source-friendly journalist, viewed its impact essentially the same way. Bradley Kuhn, a leading free software activist, stated on this blog that "[p]ost-Bilski, it's become obvious that software patents can only be ended with legislative change." That's similar to what I had written in another follow-up to Bilski.
But anyone who believed those dreamers and disinformers instead of the more realistic and honest assessments I just mentioned would now have to grant me that I was right. The first ruling on a § 101 defense against software patents by the Federal Circuit (that's the instance right below the Supreme Court) since Bilski undoubtedly proves that software technologies continue to be patentable in the US subject to the same criteria as before.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) heard an appeal in Research Corporation Technologies [RCT] vs. Microsoft, a case related to digital image halftoning (a set of techniques for improving display and print quality). Last Wednesday (08 December 2010), the CAFC announced its decision, a part of which disagreed with a district court's finding that "the asserted claims of [two of RCT's] patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101".
I haven't formed an opinion as to those particular patents. When I read the ruling, I was just interested in what principles it establishes for the patent-eligibility of software in general.
Therefore, the Supreme Court has "more than once cautioned that courts ‘should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed.’" Diehr, 450 U.S. at 182 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308). The Supreme Court has articulated only three exceptions to the Patent Act’s broad patent-eligibility principles: “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
The first part of that was also cited in the Bilski opinion, and what I quoted from Brad Kuhn is exactly what it means: if you want to do away with software patents, talk to politicians, not to judges. Of the three exceptions stated in the second part of the above quote, the first two are irrelevant to software patent issues and only the last one -- "abstract ideas" -- might play a role in a case like RCT v. Microsoft, or Oracle v. Google for that matter.
Indeed, the Supreme Court re-cently emphasized this statutory framework and faulted this court’s “machine or transformation” test for eligibility as nonstatutory. Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3227.
Therefore, the CAFC "perceives nothing abstract in the subject matter of the processes claimed in the [relevant] patents" and states that "[t]he invention presents functional and palpable applications in the field of computer technology."
These algorithms and formulas, even though admittedly a significant part of the claimed combination, do not bring this invention even close to abstractness that would override the statutory categories and context. The Supreme Court has already made abundantly clear that inventions incorporating and relying upon even "a well known mathematical equation" do not lose eligibility because "several steps of the process [use that] mathematical equation." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185.
Again, I can't comment on those RCT patents, but I have looked at the patents Oracle asserts against Google and in my opinion, those Java patents aren't any more abstract than RCT's patents or, for example, all of the Google patents I've seen so far. Digital imaging is an operation performed by a computer processor on data stored in memory, possibly a storage device. Those Java patents involve the same hardware components except that they don't make explicit reference to output devices. However, one could also implement digital halftoning in Java, which shows that there isn't an obvious way to draw a line in the sand between RCT's and Oracle's patents.
In its attempt to take down Oracle's Java patents, Google will have to look for other arguments (such as prior art) than the subject matter defense it stressed so prominently in its recent court filing.
Probably knowing that it's very unlikely to do away with all Oracle patents and to prove that it doesn't infringe the valid ones, Google has strongly played the open source Java card in its public reaction to Oracle's patent infringement suit as well as the answers it filed with the court. Google would like the court to conclude that Oracle's open source commitments related to Java allow Google to use those patents anyway.
I can't see a convincing theory for that, but what's obvious is that Google hopes to put pressure on Oracle via the open source community.
Even if that wouldn't ever change the legal facts concerning what Google has done so far, Google may hope that under enough public pressure Oracle would be more likely to let Google carry on with its Dalvik virtual machine. I said before (at the end of this post) that I believe Google is barking up the wrong tree by trying to pressure Oracle on that basis. Oracle's support for open source and "open standards" ends where its business interests begin. That impression was just affirmed three weeks ago when I listened to Oracle's VP for Standards Strategy and Architecture, Don Deutsch, at a standardization conference.
Google might have hoped that Oracle would grant a Java license to the Apache Software Foundation's Harmony project. Since Google's Dalvik virtual machine is derived from a part of the Harmony code, Google would have been, potentially, an indirect beneficiary of such a license. This was like the reverse concept of having a carpet pulled off from under one's feet. Google hoped to have a missing carpet inserted under its feet and gain a legal advantage at least with a view to the future. But as I expected, Oracle stands firm.
On Thursday (09 December 2010) the ASF announced its resignation from the JCP Executive Committee -- the steering body of the Java standards-setting process. Over a disagreement as to whether Oracle had legal obligations to grant a certain Java-related license to the Harmony project, the ASF wanted to (at least temporarily) block all further progress concerning Java. But only Apache, Google and an individual member named Tim Peierls voted that way, while eWEEK reported that six members voted unconditionally in favor of Oracle's proposal (HP, Ericsson, Fujitsu, VMware, Intel, and Oracle itself) and six other members (SAP, IBM, Eclipse, Red Hat, Credit Suisse, Werner Keil) disliked licensing restrictions but voted for Oracle.
I read a rumor on the Internet that Red Hat was actively discouraging other members from a vote that would amount to "shilling for Google". A statement Red Hat gave to internetnews.com certainly indicates the Linux distributor's allegiance to Oracle. That's not suprising since IBM supports Oracle, and Red Hat follows IBM on pretty much every occasion.
After Apache and Google lost the vote, TheRegister already expected the ASF's resignation. Oracle didn't seem to be surprised either. Its call on the ASF to "reconsider its position" doesn't mean that Oracle holds out rosy prospects to Apache and Google: it just shows that Oracle believes that the ASF will sooner or later have to yield and live with the fact that Oracle wants to retain some control over the licensing of Java and, particularly, Java-related patents. It's not an offer to hold peace talks and work out a compromise. It means that the ASF can have peace only on Oracle's terms.
If Apache doesn't accept Oracle's terms, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of Oracle suing the ASF over its Harmony project at some point. Doing so would merely be consistent with Oracle's infringement suit against Google. Right now, Oracle puts on a friendly face, seemingly extending an olive branch. But who knows for how long. At some point Oracle may conclude that the ASF will continue its collision course forever unless Oracle asserts its rights.
These circumstances limit the options Google would have should it be found to infringe Oracle's patents. The indirect Apache road to salvation appears to be blocked for the foreseeable future. Replacing Dalvik with another infringing technology wouldn't make sense either. However, most (if not all) Android applications have been written in Java, and Google must find a way forward for its third-party app developers. It can't just tell them that all of their applications can no longer be legally executed on Android and that they'd have to rewrite them with a completely different development system.
The GPL avenue wouldn't work either. While Google could theoretically take Oracle's GPL'd Java code (OpenJDK and/or parts of phoneME) and build some new GPL'd software capable of executing existing Android apps, it has clearly been Google's approach so far to eschew the GPL and its "copyleft" principle according to which anything derived from or incorporating GPL'd code must be GPL'd as well.
If Google had to do that, it might help its app developers temporarily but at the expense of creating major complications for the business strategies of its key partners among device makers. Those strategies are centered around closed-source, proprietary extensions to Android, which effectively make the platform "open in name only".
This is Google's dilemma: it has to work out things with Oracle in a way that Android app developers and Android device makers can live with. If Oracle's legal position is indeed very strong, if Oracle's intentions are about control as opposed to just money and if Google continues to be unable to countersue for infringement of any of its own patents, then there may be no solution that averts devastating damage to the Android ecosystem.
"FOSS, by the way, stands for Free and Open Source Software, which may suggest a bias on Mueller's part. If so, we've never detected it in any of his reports."
In other words, my analysis doesn't come across as "FOSSy". It's true that I try hard not to be ideological about the intellectual property issues affecting the high tech industry. I'm always grateful for recognition of that effort, in public and in private.
But I can't deny that I often find myself misunderstood in different ways. On one end of the spectrum, there are a few who believe that this is an extension of the NoSoftwarePatents campaign I used to run years ago. On the other end, there's a certain number of people (greater than the first group) who misperceive or mischaracterize my activities as an attempt to speak on behalf of the open source community at large as an "astroturfer", or worse than that, suspect a divisive agenda. None of that is true.
Most importantly, let me make it very clear -- right upfront -- that I never claimed or implied to be (or to be eligible as) an open source community leader or spokesman. Until I say otherwise, I don't have a mandate to represent anyone but myself.
I'm not trying to create a movement or subcommunity, nor the appearance of one. When some speculate about whether "the community follows" me, I can only shake my head because that's not my objective (it was a goal during the NoSoftwarePatents campaign, but not now). If that were the objective, I would have to do many things differently.
I just try to create unique, interesting, relevant and timely content, and to be thought-provoking. This blog gets read by lots of professionals and quoted in major media, so it delivers something others don't. That is, however, separate from knowing very well that on some important issues my views are not shared by a majority of FOSS community members. However, I believe that an increasing number of people will be interested in that perspective even if it isn't necessarily their own.
As a matter of principle, I never want to pretend to be something that I'm not, whether it generates publicity or support in some respects or negative associations in others. So I'll say it again, loud and clear: this blog is not an organ of the free and open source software community.
In an effort to counter misperceptions concerning my role, I updated the profile box (right-hand column), now introducing myself as "an award-winning intellectual property activist with 25 years of software industry expertise spanning across different market segments (games, education, productivity and infrastructure software), diverse business models (proprietary software, free and open source software, advertising- and subscription-based online services) and a variety of technical and commercial areas of responsibility."
Compared to many other blogs commenting on similar topics, I try to offer a particularly holistic perspective taking the technical, commercial, political and legal aspects of these issues into consideration -- and to provide understandable explanations.
Besides that, I often produce my analysis quicker than many others, and I dare to contradict or criticize persons and organizations whom many others revere unconditionally.
Some misunderstood my use of the term "FOSS" as a statement of strict adherence to Richard Stallman's free software values. Actually, the only reason for which I chose it was to recognize what RMS and his followers achieved. Saying "FOSS" instead of just "open source" is more efficient than placing "GNU" in front of "Linux".
I've been in this industry for 25 years, most of the time in closed source (such as when I marketed some Blizzard Entertainment games in Central Europe). For three years (2001-2004) I advised MySQL's CEO. It was a part-time capacity (about three days per month). I was also a small shareholder until the sale to Sun in 2008.
My NoSoftwarePatents campaign received most of its support from open source people and companies, and open source juries nominated it for awards. But when I gave speeches during that campaign I pointed out that my own software development was closed-source (.NET-based, in fact). The campaign website listed nine "dangers" due to software patents. The patent threat to "Linux & Open Source" was the first item, but there were eight others that weren't specifically related to open source.
In late 2009 and early 2010 I fought hard against Oracle's acquisition of MySQL. I worked with Michael 'Monty' Widenius, MySQL's founder, and his company Monty Program Ab on that effort. At the time I was, for sure, an open source advocate. But it was a project, an episode.
To me, open source is important primarily as a competitive force. In a position paper I wrote as part of my work for Monty Program, I made the case for open source as a competitive factor. I didn't claim that it's an inherently superior production model or the only ethically acceptable one.
I created my Apple vs. Android diagrams with OpenOffice Draw, and my current mobile phone is an Android-based Samsung Galaxy, but Outlook has been my email client for many years. Actually, most computer users are just like that.
When I report on patent litigation, I shut out all political considerations and focus strictly on the legal processes, the technical scope of the asserted patents and the commercial framework, and just like everybody else I'm interested in clues as to which litigant may have the upper hand and how a dispute might impact vendors, consumers and application developers.
I guess war correspondents find themselves in a similar situation, especially if they participated in peace demonstrations earlier on.

References: § 271
 § 271
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v.