HP paid $1.2bn for Palm and all it's IP just over a year ago. If they were to open source webOS in any meaningful way (meaning, people could actually use it), t

HP paid $1.2bn for Palm and all it's IP just over a year ago. If they were to open source webOS in any meaningful way (meaning, people could actually use it), they would have to similarly release the Palm patent portfolio to the public domain. For leadership in a publicly traded company to do this, they need some kind of plan to show that this would enhance shareholder value, and it needs to be a strong plan. Have a look at Google's strategy. Google maintains an open source mobile OS as a strategy for controlling the platform that delivers their product to consumers. Along with this major benefit, there are other strategic benefits as well. Giving away Android applies pressure to other competitors that encroach on Google's search product (Microsoft Bing) and other developing markets (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, etc). HP has, until recently, been a hardware company. It's hard to make a case for open sourcing the mobile OS you just paid $1.2bn for when there's the very real possibility that your competitors will pick it up and make a better device than you. I guess I need help seeing the strategic benefit to HP for open sourcing webOS. The two ways I see them extracting shareholder value are: * Selling the Palm patent portfolio outright * Identifying companies that encroach on their patents and extracting licensing fees