Slashdot Mirror
IBM Patents Method For Paying Open Source Workers
Frequanaut writes "Oh, the bitter, bitter irony. According to The Inquirer, in a strange move, IBM has patented a method for paying open source volunteers.
By the way, if the future of software development is open source, how will anyone get paid when only IBM can do it?" The Inquirer quizzically notes, with regard to this patent: "It may be an ingenious way of paying open source developers and volunteers, Big Blue, but can it really be described as an invention?"
One more reason you should take a job with McDonalds.
Talk about a development likely to elicit mixed feelings.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
What do the numbers on that flowchart represent?
Would like Fries with that McJob?
I'd like to think that IBM won't enforce this patent to disrupt paid open source development because they now realise how important Linux, GNU, X, Gnome and KDE are to their business model. However, I suspect I'm just being naieve.
So if you want to get paid for developing free software you should move to Europe where methods are not patentable (yet).
One would hope they've done this defensively, to stop some (other?) evil corporation patenting it first and banjaxing things?
I said hope.
fortune -o
Only IBM could take a good spirited, community driven idea like open source and turn it into a capitalist-oriented business concept. And patent it to boot.
-Vendal Thornheart
And they're burning bridges with Microsoft. It makes sense that they want to secure this method to protect their investment. This isn't a hobby or a game to them, it's a company's livelihood.
Who wants to go halfsies with me to patent "method for paying open source workers" on the web? We'll make a fortune!
I didn't know that you could patent money!
Or, is IBM paying them with something else? Peanuts? Filtering their spam for them?
I am not a constitutional lawyer or any great expert in history, so if I get any details right or wrong I'll apologize in advance.
I personally don't have an issue with IBM or any other number of companies applying for patents in principle. After all, a lot of that is what I would call "defensive patents" which I have a whole separate issue with and won't go into here.
I do have one major problem with a lot of the patents I've been seeing lately on "business processes". I believe that the Founding Fathers had a basic idea about patents:
It was for inventions. Something you could build and use. If you couldn't build it, then details blueprints on how the "repeater rifle" was going to look at the end or "the automatic banana peeler".
Not a wish or a dream or some vague concept on how something is going to work, or a method of how to go from A to B by sticking your thumb up your ass turning in a circle and singing "I can fly". Not for the genetic code of a field mouse that Nature kicked up and you discovered the genetic sequence - though you could probably patent the gel used to discover the genetic markers. That's fair game.
Inventions. An actual item that can be built in the real world. And it seems that for whatever reason, our members of congress or the senate or whichever slick son of a bitch (or daughter, whatever) who seems to exist only to bend over and get reamed by the latest lobbyist promising that patenting "business procedures is good for the economy!" is not doing their job by the Founding Fathers.
Who, if they saw what patents are being used for today, would probably use a big old switch on the idiots allowing patents like this to go through. Lord knows, they didn't invent the "willow tree supple butt-swacker switch", but they probably knew how to use it when people acted like asses.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
What open source developer gets paid? Anyone? Bueller?
is that IBM has lots of patents on lots of things that they don't normally enforce. Lots of memory control and process control concepts are covered by their patents, yet they don't enforce them. SCO is giving them a reason to, though, as a defensive counterattack.
It might be possible that IBM is patenting this so that no one else *cough*SCO*Microsoft*cough* gets to the idea first. This is somewhat unlikely, but not impossible. Hopefully IBM's open source concepts will remain god for the public.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
I'm convinced that the patent for my method of opening a door and walking through will be completed any day now. Then you'll all owe me big!
Virtually nobody is writing open-source software to place it in the public domain. Rather, much of it is licensed under the GNU GPL, which embraces the property rights of copyright and uses them to ensure that the code remains open. I propose a parallel license for patents: a perpetual, irrevocable license for open-source software[1] to implement, use, and improve the patented concepts and inventions free of charge.
If we patent our patentable work, instead of merely copyrighting our code, we can build a defensive patent portfolio. This would give us some leverage against patent infringement suits, as well as being good business sense in the current climate.
What is the harm in not adopting such a license? Besides the possibility of open-source ultimately being crushed by patents, there is the risk of our work becoming a de facto Microsoft R&D lab. We are already seeing that future with XUL (or libglade) and Microsoft's XAML.
In addition, this license would give Red Hat a graceful way to keep their promise that they will never charge licensing fees on their patents.
And now, IBM has patented something very much like the Open Source model itself. Can we afford to continue ignoring patents? IBM was once greatly despised, and there is nothing to say that if Microsoft falls, they won't become a new tyrant.
Of course, open-source developers would still need to apply and pay for the patent, but it is much cheaper to apply than retroactively fight one.
[1] Rather than "open-source software", the patent license would have to define which software licenses are considered open source. If the patent license relies on an external definition like "OSI-approved", then the OSI could change the license after the fact by changing their approvals. Since the proposed license is irrevocable, the patent couldn't be withdrawn from it if OSI added a license the patent-holder objected to.
(This post is based on the ideas of someone else. I'll drop them a line so they can take credit or elaborate as they see fit.)
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
They might want to patent this just to simply hold the patent. They could let anyone who wants to use it, to use it for free, or donate it to the FSF. Maybe they just wanted to get it before another company with more devious plans got it. Think what Microsoft would do with this. They would kill Open Source, or do their damndest to do it, with the new tool.
I just think there might be a chance IBM has some pure intentions here.
Th
Next thing you know Microsoft is going to sue IBM for infringing on their patented methods of preventing OSS workers from getting paid.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
...SCO patents method for being paid by Open Source workers
Don't you open source contributers sometimes get the feeling that other people are getting rich off your hard work?
This is exactly how topcoder pays people for developing components, except the software isn't open source. http://www.topcoder.com/?&t=development&c=inde x
That's the funniest thing I've heard this year!
All Your Open Source Base Are Belong To IBM!
Hopefully soon, everything about software and computers will be patented, so I can curb my mind from its aweful tendency to stray outside of the box. Go IBM, Microsoft, et al.!
I see this AS a PROPER use of patents. Granted what they are doing is something quite common, but I would bet that the way they do it is unique, In which case it would be patenting of a business method. Since when has this been evil?
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Go SCO!
Let's hope SCO can pull of this lawsuit it has against IBM and drive IBM into the ground.
PS: I've not yet decided if this is a sarcastic remark.
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
Next, you start recruiting volunteers. For every 25 volunteers you recruit, your base pay increases by paid $5/hr.
The best part is, every time one of your recruits signs up 25 additional developers, you get a $25 per week bonus!
Really, you can't lose!
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
It is a patent on A method, not the only method.
With the way the current business world works, anything that can be patented needs to be, if nothing else but for the defensive value.
IBM, who I believe is the #1 patent holder in the world, knows this better than anyone.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Used to work at a place that regularly patented just about everything. The main reason given was that "if we don't patent it, someone else might and keep us from pursuing the process".
The main idea was that if we patent it, we can't be prevented from using it. IBM may have patented the process to keep someone else doing it and denying access to everyone else like Amazon is trying to do with it's "One Click" patent...
Just my 2c
...but just imagine for a moment if M$ had patented it.
Dear Will, the plums were poisoned. -- Cheese Club
Heh, do you post the same exact phrase on every article involving a patent on /.? I swear I just saw this from you earlier this morning. Not complaining or anything, just an observation :P
In related news, SCO claims this is only a derivative work on their system of now getting paid by open source volunteers, and promises to add it to their lawsuit.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But overall, we must admit, that patents generally are a good thing.
... hmmm ... software algorithms) is an absurd perversion of the intended purposes of the patent system. If the suits who think this kind of thing is a good idea had their way, we'd have one enormously rich company that had a patent on "a method of selling goods at a higher cost than that involved in producing said goods in order to realize a profit," and everyone else would starve.
Overall, we must admit no such thing -- when it comes to "business method" patents, anyway. I'm all for patenting actual, physical, mechanical inventions; and I'm willing to let chemical (including drug) patents slide by on the edges. But patenting ways of doing things (which includes forms of payment and also
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"...how will anyone get paid when only IBM can do it?"
simply, by licensing the technology from IBM to pay developers.
Oh yeah... well I'm going to patent paying IBM workers. Take that big blue.
--
In London? Need a Physics Tutor?
American Weblog in London
Apparently you've never seen what patent attorneys do with even simplest ideas. Basically they are paid to put all those numbers next to every identifiable feature on all diagrams and then explain what's going on in "plain" ;-) text. As in, "After process step "define" (110) an "analyse" step (120) has to be taken"...
Paul B.
Actually, good patents are an exception to the rule that all patents are bogus, baseless "inventions".
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
He posted just the same in another thread, modded troll
Open Source Workers patent method for excluding IBM hardware and software from ever working with Linux
Don't count on IBM to screw anyone on this, they aren't the type of company to cut off their nose to spite their face.
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
that IBM has tons of patents they get but don't enforce. They use them first, so nobody else can get them and fuck over IBM, and second, to use against people tht try to fight IBM. I expect that we will see lots of similar patents used against SCO. This specific one seems like the first category as IBM needs to be able to pay its OSS workers, imo.
Aren't volunteer and paid worker mutually exclusive?
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Maybe we got Big Blue all wrong. Maybe it's a defensive patent, much like the FSF do to prevent someone else from patenting something, and thus preventing anyone else from using it. Or maybe, IBM is going to start paying each and every open source developer in the world by themselves...
Or maybe not.
who would you rather be holding such a patent, Microsoft, perhaps our friends SCO. In the climate of patent fever in america, it's not so much whether they have the patent as how they use it.
it's a bit early yet to really trust ibm IMHO.
(null)
It's not a flowchart, it's a pyramid scheme!
Those at the top get most of the money.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
Did anybody check out the patent webpage, check out the inventors:
Inventors:
- Megiddo, Nimrod (Palo Alto, CA);
- Zhu, Xiaoming (San Jose, CA)
Is it any wonder?
As opposed to Microsoft (who has never enforced any patents, so some people even think they don't have any), IBM has in the past enforced their patents and squeezed a great deal of money from others by doing so. Plus, IBM has 10x the patent portfolio that Microsoft has.
IBM employees get a bonus for filing and being granted a patent, right? I wonder how many of the garbage patents granted are a result of employees going for the bonuses associated with getting a patent.
At least you noticed our virtues! So often people like you tend to miss the value and beauty of productive people like us. Troll.
"I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
IBM could protect themselves from others abusing such patents by patenting the process (this is legally possible?!!!) and then ASSIGNING THE PATENT TO THE FSF which will steward it for the public good. or something.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Is there _anything_ in this world that doesn't need a patent? I think I will patent complaining and whining, and make a fortune off of celebrities alone. Then I could learn how to spell and be set for life!
If I could get a firm grip on reality, I'd choke it...
There was an interesting article in last week's Network World that described IBM's "domination" in the world of patents. Basically IBM makes it very worthwhile for their employees to come up with patentable ideas - they are rewarded with pay raises, bonuses, and the like. The idea is to foster and encourage innovation within the company.
Given this, it would not be unreasonable to assume that some individual within IBM saw this as an opportunity to play the wheel for some extra dough. It's not the only possible explanation - we've seen plenty of businesses overextend the US Patent Office before - but it certainly is a reasonable hypothesis.
#DeleteChrome
a) A method -> there sure are other methods
b) Only IBM paying? Then all those OS developers must be working for IBM -> IBM shall be the new M$. Hallelujahh!
c) Not every OS developer is payed, right?
BTW: Wasn't IBM the same company that already has the largest number of patents in its portfolio, or am I mistaken there?
I call troll. someone mod him down.
Plus, by his sig, he's probably a liberal extremist and a homosexual too. gross. mod this guy "-1 Fag"
Many companies, but especially IBM have "Patent Reward Systems". Essentially, they pay folks $1000 for Patent Applications, and the lawyers will try to send it as many as they can...after all, it's their job to do so. The more patents you write, the more money you get for successive patents, and having patents is the only good way to get to the "Distinguished Engineer" level. All in all, it encourages engineers to generate SPAM for the USPTO rather than innovative, but I knew numerous folks at IBM that would play the system.
This patent could be used be used for proprietary software or for outsourcing an internal development process.
Make open source the headline, and you've got yourself a thread with tons of messages.
it doesn't cover Free Software developers and volunteers. I think the Free Software Foundation has some prior art. Also, doesn't a patent require a prototype? So where's the IBM prototype so all the out of work developers on here can go try to make some money?
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
IBM's new business plan:
1. Patent open source payment plan
2. License patent to SCO
3. SCO sues IBM for $3B
4. SCO collects $3B and shares with Linux contributors
5. IBM secretly pockets 10% in licensing fees, while writing off the $3B loss and screwing shareholders.
6. Profit!
The real question is will the developers of Linux and other open source software be retroactively paid for contributions?
Probably unlikely but in all fairness it owuld make sense
Okay, everyone will just have to go back to patenting ridiculous circuit diagrams instead of software. That's very progressive-thinking.
Or does IBM own them too?
"America!" - "America? Ohhh... A-m-e-r-i-c-a. That's nice."
I hope I have these posed correctly, feel free to slap me around if I'm missing the point or being just too paranoid (yeah, 'too paranoid' on
If IBM (or someone) pays you your write their module, and you do it and get paid, who owns the copyright by default ?
Hmmm, so IBM could then have the copyright on tons of "open source" works (GPL'ed of course)...
(Okay, that last one was only half serious)
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
... for the US Patent Office to create a new product: Defensive Patents, i.e. patents that can only be enforced on entities that are suing yourself for patent infringement. They can even hold 2 for 1 sales every 3 months or so and make a killing. :P
Gentlemen, I refer you to this Slashdot post.
...federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional!
Things are getting more and more ugly here.
Instead of suing SCO, IBM now threatens people who intend to pay developers.
Anyone wishing to pay open source volunteers must buy a $699 license from SCO.
signed
Darl
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
From the description of the Patent:
Further, currently there is a severe shortage of computer programmers. Even employers that are willing to pay high salaries frequently are unable to find enough skilled programmers to meet requirements for a particular programming job.
This does not make sense. There are not enough skilled programmers to be found out there, so we are going to design and implement by accepting random code from people who must not be "computer programmers" seeing as there is such a shortage? More power to ya Blue. I'd like to patent hiring all the skilled programmers and actually paying them a "wage" or "salary". Could that be considered an invention, or is that too obvious and trivial?
I don't care if they thought of it first. I don't care if it's wonderfully original. There was a time thousands of years ago when giving people money for goods/services was a gloriously original idea. Someone thought of it first. IBM patenting this (albeit confusing) method is not only a slap in the face of everything Open Source stands for, but proves to hurt IBM and the entire software industry when the domination of proprietary firms finally crumbles. IBM, while our ally on the SCO front, can NOT be allowed to retake the position it had before Microsoft. I was just getting to really liking them. Who do I even write to about our ludicrous patent system?
The sooner the EFF gets on this the better.
please do us all a favor, and go eat some raw meat to replenish the cholesterol you are lacking. it'll help with the depression.
Big Blue has done great things for Linux. Everyone knows this. But.. Patenting a method for paying OSS workers?! What kind of crap is that? Inventions. Not vague concepts.
A lot of you are saying that it's a defensive patent, that IBM doesn't exercise their patents, etc., so it's okay. Vague patents are wrong. I don't care who's applying and receiving them. If IBM really wanted to defend OSS workers against evil patents, then use prior art. And if another company has prior art to IBM's prior art.. Well, IBM's patent won't really hold regardless.
From my point of view, this is a blatant abuse of the patent system by an otherwise decent company. Sorry IBM, but you misstepped here.
This statement is false.
Know your enemy, your officials in congress are the top few hundred 'please everyone' class presidents/kissups of the country. They got to where they are by not pissing anyone off, especially those who kicked them the loot to advertise to the general(ly stupid) population.
This is what these guys are facing:
Nice, well-dressed, smart, attentive and rich lobbyists take them out to lunch and explain that patents on inventions were great for the industrial revolution, so patents on business practices will be a boon for the 'new service economy'. It really doesn't SOUND bad, especially after a few glasses of wine and a free lunch. Why not? right?
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
A VIOLA is a stringed instrument, goddamnit.
So.. I'm thinking that they made this for those crack smokers at SCO that are claiming that because there is no "profit motive" in the GPL that it's unconstitutional, now there's something that IBM can use to say "sure there is.. look.. patent # 12345FU, now quit your baby-whining and show us some real proof." Now granted, the baby-whining won't stop, but that's another story.
Method Patents have to be the biggest nightmare going. But they are here, and it has to be dealt with (until laws can be changed). IBM and Bell Labs (Lucent/Avaya) hold the largest number of patents going. Almost all of them are junk and are rarely used. But when somebody comes along and starts a law suit, then they pull out the patent portfolio.
IBM may be doing us a favor by getting it. This blocks hostile companies from aquiring them. The real question is what will IBM do with them. While I have no doubt that IBM will not use them against us today, if they have a CEO change, they could elect to hit us with them. Hopefully, IBM will turn them over to EFF or GNU.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You send tons of patents, see what sticks. And then use it to kill off innovative competitors. Sigh.
Best Community for Gaming and Gadgets!
I mean, think about it people. Here in the 'states, you use one of those two forms to declare to the IRS (or is that a W4 rather than a W2?) exactly what's being withheld from your check. So what's the big deal, Big Blue?
This sig no verb.
When I opened this up in a new tab in Mozilla, the tab read "IBM Patents Meth..."
'Nuff said. Now I know what they're smokin'.
--JoeProgram Intellivision!
OSS has become an important part of their business. Now suppose they want to set up a funding mechanism to pay contributors. Now suppose someone had asked for or created a business process for that mechanism and was issued a patent on it. IBM would be a target for someone with deep pockets. "you paid OSS developers and you owe us huge money for using our process."
Would you rather have someone with a vested interest in paying OSS developers owning such a patent or someone who would benefit from having OSS developers not be paid for the life of the patent (10-20 years?)
I think its also an interesting sign that IBM is somehow trying to come up with some funding mechanisms for OSS other than what it puts into specialty organizations like OSDL (or wherever Linus is working).
Also a more uniform mechanism beyond shareware, tip jars, bounties and "tech support contracts" as funding mechanisms for furthered development would draw many of the closed source shops into the fold. A more uniform or alternate funding mechanism could make OSS happen at a faster rate.
Actually, there is.
/. as patented? Any record of any of those being overturned? From what I've heard, it's tough to overturn a patent, once it's issued. Patenting this will make sure it doesn't happen in this particular case.
This way, the patent is recorded at the PTO, and becomes a readily visible part of the prior art. How many 'obviously done before' things have been reported on
That said, I have no idea whatsoever what IBM's motives are in seeking this patent.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
And then the Supreme Court of the United States of America declines to hear the case because resolving all the claims would "clog up the court systems".
Now that SUCKS! Biggest employer in many comunities, blah blah blah, my ass!
In other news, today Microsoft patented paying people with Xboxes and MCSE courses.
Important stuff: Keep your posts on-topic.
Isn't this exactly what topcoder.com have been doing for years?
Inventors: Megiddo; Nimrod (Palo Alto, CA); Zhu; Xiaoming (San Jose, CA)
Nothing personal, but now we can say that the patent on a "System, method and program product for software development" was invented by a Nimrod.
IBM has a vested interest in Open Source development. It is not likely that they would take out a patent with the idea of hurting one of their benefactors. It is far more likely that in a climate where other companies seek to destroy open source (**Cough** SCO **Cough** Microsoft) they perceived a threat and are taking preemptive action.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The reason IBM is doing this is so that someone cannot come along down the line when this sort of payment scheme is popular and launch a frivolous lawsuit against IBM saying that they had thought of (and patented) that payment scheme first. You can thank the lawyers for the death of personal responsibility and common sense in our society. These days if you do not put the obvious in writing and patent it then somebody will hit you with a lawsuit. IBM is simply limiting their legal exposure like any other company would.
Once upon a time, not so long ago (well, 15 years or so ago, when I was last an IBM-er), IBM were considered the devil incarnate by the rest of the industry. Certainly not as ruthless as Microsoft, but by no means an altruistic benefactor of society.
IBM was famous for FUD, in fact the term may well have been first put forward about them. The mere threat of new products and technologies from IBM could chill the market.
The last real incident of this that I remember was when IBM introduced the PS2. It came with the revolutionary new MCA bus. The PC add-on board makers screamed that IBM was going to decimate them, and may struggled to produce boards using the new bus. In fact, those that stuck with ISA (?) were the smart ones as the market has by this time overtaken IBM even though they didn't yet realise it.
I don't think of IBM as a "non-hostile" - just as one with very smart PR and an understanding that they will never again be a force in the PC operating system market, so their best tactic, since they can't have it, is to make sure no-one else (Microsoft) has it either. Kind of like pissing in the well if you can't drink from it.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful
So, most people are, not too surprisingly, discussing the patent issues here. What about the way other communities pounce on new patents? Not to question the idea of patent, but to speculate on a new product. Will IBM be trying to jump-start the OSS movement by paying people to develop Linux and other tools?
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
who would you like to patent this? Microsoft, SCO, or IBM. Whom do you trust more out of the 3 to hold the patent and not use it to sue world + dog?
Well, IBM rarely brings out its patents, and from the SCO case, the patents they countersued on suggested IBM could shatter the tech industry if they decided to throw down with their full weight.
I doubt we will see these patents used unless IBM needs to countersue someone on a relevant issue. The situation still bears watching in case I'm wrong, but I wouldn't really worry. IBM has an incredible number of patents that they could abuse, but don't.
I suggest you to read the report of the US fderal trade commission. Or support FFII UK or the FFII Call for Action II.
There will be several swpat conferences and lobby actions next year.
We have to join forces and get rid of the inefficient software-patent system. In Europe it is still semi-legal. Let's support the EU Parliament's directive against the united scum in the national DOJs.
"Even to IBM most patents are not a cash cow. A small number of their patents bring in a lot of money, but most of them don't bring in any money."
Arnoud Engelfriet, NL patent attorney
The question is not whether it is "right" for IBM to try and get such a patent. Repeat after me: corporations are strictly self-interested and will do whatever you let them get away with. If you want to be mad at someone, try the Patent Office. It is supposed to be the government's job to slap down corporations when they go too far, as they surely will unless they receive said slapping.
...but maybe you can get a limited monopoly on paid talent.
There is a catch: Prior art. Unlike most software patents, it describes a process that can be a valid patent. It is simple enough to call "obvious" which is a disqualifier. Since it is registered, the best thing anyone can do is show the idea has been published anywhere and invalidate it. Most software patents will meet this fate, therefore it is probably good practice for a patent lawyer to refuse to consider software, biotech, obvious ideas and those that are in common use or known to have been published.
That's not humorous, really. It's merely coincidental. It cannot be taken in the same context.
That would force people into paying OS developers which would be a nice thing :-).
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Shouldn't this article have the Monty Python foot icon instead?
... I earned it using a similar scheme.
:-P
Oh well at least SCO owes IBM money big time now
OSS really doesn't need to worry about this type of patent since people shouldn't have to pay for software anyway. BTW, I was checking out an abandonned building down by the tracks.
I've been thinking of taking a crowbar to one of the shuttered windows and open sourcing it. There is a business near by with an unsecured wireless network...open sourced broadband I say. I had opened sourced a laptop that I found on the back seat of a grey Lexus last week. My last challenge is in finding a way to open source some power from a near by utility pole. My vote for Howard Dean, should get me free health care. Now, if only I could find some open sourced food, I will be set.
Could this be the seeds of a plan of IBM's to be able to, in 5 years or so let's say, to be able to hold the reigns and control the DIRECTION of open source development??
It's one thing to be in direct control of people you employ, but how would you logically attempt to control a varied and diverse community such as open source when you have no real direct control of them - through monetary compensation. To expand on this, let's say it becomes common practice to reimburse open source programmers regularly for their contributions. If IBM holds the patents for such a paradigm, then they can effectively control the direction and the evolution of open source. Of course, this only holds true IFF (the third 'F' is there for a reason!) the community as a whole becomes swayed and tempted by the monetary lure of reimburesement instead of creating and innovating for the pure joy of it.
I could be wrong.
My lawyers will be contacting you shortly regarding your use of the term "volunteers" to refer to people who are paid. I've already applied for the patent on that extension of the normal meaning of "volunteer".
"IBM has patented a method for paying open source volunteers."
Patented... open source...
Paying... volunteers...
A winner is you, IBM!
If the IBM patent really is defensive, and if the threat is present and not future, then we might be on the leading edge of a ramp up in defensive/offensive patents. How about these patents we'd all like to see?
A patent on a method to manage outsourced software development.
A patent on a method to handle consumer RMAs using web services to coordinate agents.
A patent on a method to manage software development via timelines and milestones using an online collaborative system.
A patent on a method to...
I think you get the point. If the way we work is now subject to patent, just like the products of our work, then there is very little that cannot be patented. Either the madness will now stop, or the future of our industry is going to be absolutely insane.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
By 2010 the only people who will be able to afford to eat will be the Indian outworkers. Suggestion for a long-term career path: don't work for a place that sells beef!
This isn't an invention, it is just a modification on an existing invention - the Open Source model where the developers are not paid. Isn't that the crux of our patent system, where instead of inventing something new, you take something that exists and improve upon it in unique ways?
This could be just another leverage patent, of which IBM has many. They only bring them out if you piss them off. Like the extremely well hung guy at a party who just sits back and chills while all the drunken frat guys get into a weiner-size argument, and only whips it out when money hits the table.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
simple as that. They no longer pay employees for patents. Actually after 5 years there you are EXPECTED to have submitted at least one patent application. It does not need to be accepted but you are supposed to have submitted it. The woman I worked with was working weekend to get hers done. Please don't spead false data.
I got laid off with everyone else a few years ago. IBM did the tesbench models for the IC's used on the first mars probe.
the metric/standard failure one)
The question is: is it patented only US domestically? If so then I don't see any problem as US patent system is a complete bull-shit and the more it is bullshit is the more chances that US will be weaker and weaker and eventually it will step aside and do not disturb the world progress.
Less is more !
And in a recent previous Slashdot story, some guy actually told me IBM stopped being evil back in 1984 after I mentioned how people hate Microsoft yet rally around the just-as-evil-and-corporate IBM just because they push Linux now. So much for that. If this were Microsoft patenting a method for paying, say, intern workers, Slashdotters would be falling over themselves posting their "M$" criticisms fast enough.
Normal bid works by the consumer saying I'd like X, Y, & Z please tell me how much you will charge. Then several providers say I can do that for A, B, or C dollars. The consumer then picks the lowest price.
The only thing special about this is the dollar amount is fixed and the deliverable is measured for maximum value. In other words the consumer says I want X, Y & Z and I'm willing to pay A dollars. Several providers say I can do X, Y, & Z and a few say we also do T, U, V, and W while others don't. The consumer then picks the provider with the most features, least installation/maintenance effort, etc.
In other words, they're patent-squatting? Remind me again why we like this company?
Is writing code with volunteer programmers any more different than law geeks (read: students) applying for patents on a volunteer basis. The truth is that ordinary people can apply for patents and obtain them, while fighting a patent involves court fees, lawyers, and possibly a search for prior art. Applying for a patent simply takes due diligence, research (even by a volunteer) and a submittal fee. You tell me, which is logically less expensive?
I can't believe IBM intends to be sticky about licensing this patent. It would alienate the very people they want to work with. And even if you think Software Patents are Evil, Unconstitutional, and Contrary to Natural Law, the fact remains that the courts accept them. As long as that state of affairs persists, you can't fault people for filing patents, only misusing the patents once they're obtained.
Related topic: I think I'm beginning to understand IBM's open-source strategy. They have the obvious reasons for wanting to break away from Microsoft. But they also have one other incentive: Microsoft products tend to be Pentium specific. Open source software tends to be processor agnostic. And guess who makes the biggest competitor to the Pentium? Right!
After reading this I had to chect the date to make sure it was not dated April 01.
Sheesh.
Seems to me, if someone can legitimately refer to it as "an ingenious way of..." then it should be patentable. Isn't that the whole point?
As I read "openpatents" there is no give-back requirement. What LoonXtall is describing in my stead is a GPL for patenting, ie: using the same technique the GPL applies to copyright to apply for patents and keep the pool growing and becoming more attractive. Only by forcing aggregation can we create a crosslicensing pool attractive enough to be self-sustaining, and in this regard openpatents lacks.
-J Le'Brecage
I think I'll patent the way that I walk, talk, write, breathe, then I'll be able to hold-up IBM for a quadrillion dollars one day. This is silly. I thought IBM wanted to endorse Linux because it was a chance for them to forget about all the mistakes they made on AIX/UNIX (ie: proprietary-ness, slowness, cost, ROI, etc), but now I wonder if they've lost their mind & cant remember what they just got done teachign themselves only a few years ago. Greed. Silly.
"Poor little Nimrod!"
Inventors: Megiddo; Nimrod (Palo Alto, CA); Zhu; Xiaoming (San Jose, CA)
Assignee: International Business Machines
Would this be considered prior art?
Ok im going to patent my way of overthrowing an incompetent government. My 'invention' will include ways to decide who exactly to shoot if you have limited ammunition, how to get that evil laugh right just before you eject the president into space and how to scare your army into following your orders by offering death incentives to those who resist.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
How can you patent something so utterly obvious? It would be ok if it had required an army of bigheads but it isnt really anything that should be patentable.
Is the US patent system really in for the benefit of companies AND buyers or has it evolved into a kind of steel tariff? From a bystander the looseness and lack of rules makes it look as if the purpouse would be to make it as easy as possible for US companies to get patents that they can use abroad.
The downside for the US is that all these nonsense patents have really hit American companies the hardest.
HTTP/1.1 400
I heard that, recently, one of the most popular sites in the net has been taken down because they were violating a patent on "A Method for Distending a Consenting Human Adult's Anal Sphincter".
Here's the the link again.
...the whole purpose of patents is to get ideas into the public domain in exchange for a 17 year monopoly on revenues.
It may be an ingenious way of paying open source developers and volunteers, Big Blue, but can it really be described as an invention?"
recent patent madness will only hasten their eventually becoming irrelevant. I love it. Whats next? Patent for a new Salad Dressing? Patent for a TShirt logo? Cookie recipe? (yes, i know the latter may best be covered by a copyright... but hell, should a copyright even be granted?)
I for one welcome our new corporate document-and-patent-the-world overlords.
That's not an invention! They just took an existing business model and slapped the words "Open Source" on it.
So, where can I sign up?
Is this another one of IBM's joke patents like their:
"Method of Bra Size Determination by Direct Measurement of the Breast" patent?
I find it hard to believe that anyone would take either patent seriously.
Life is too short to proofread.
Since the community is a community of individuals, technically any member can file for the patent as a "small entity" in which fees are substantially reduced. Typical small entity fees are under 100 USD. (Note: there are countries with lower priced patenting than the USA and patenting in those countries would be just as advantageous.) And no, you don't need a lawyer to apply for a patent. You merely need to be willing to do all your own legwork. The lawyer legwork is the real cost of patent work.
There are several good books on registering your own patents. Check.
-J. Le'Brecage
I got a patent on farting, so pay up or lose your air another way.
You'd think if they were going to get a patent on paying open source developers, they would also get some patents in their core compentency... Clever ways to not pay career programmers by outsourcing overseas.
What about Ximian / Novell bounties? Sounds like the same damn thing to me!
This patent crap is *WAY* **WAY** out of control.
Never under estimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes.
A patent that can be used to shut down a business can be equally used to shut down an ope source project. Only by having our own patents can we hope to protect ourselves or will it take the first valuable Open Source project being shut down to convince you that copyright is not enough.
OSS doesn't have trade secrets. OSS gives away, or exchanges for enhancement, most of the rights under copyright thus rendering the copyright ineffective as a protective measure. The few trademarks that exist aren't being well protected (Linux). Shall we simply argue that the patent should not exist and leave it at that?
F/OSS is beating back proprietary software because we've turned the concept of ownership on its head. Should we fail to do this with patents as well, then patents will be used to squash our copyright.
-J Le'Brecage.
We at SCO already thought of this a long time ago. Our lawyers will be contacting you shortly.
IBM had better beware that they don't go too far. The patent looks like a method of serfdom to me. Imagine the reaction if they use this to screw other developers though! They could get blacklisted, and get cut off from other development groups, which would be a disaster for them. All Linus has to say is go make your own kernal IBM and they are screwed.
When reading Snow Crash I was thinking how would we get to a state when everyone works from a form or book. Every operation scripted. Why would we go to that?
Well it is not that we will go to that. More likely we will be forced into that.
Sorry you can not offer fries with that your restrant does not hold the pattant of offering fries to customers.
if so, where do i find the forms to patent a said method of compensainting said slaves from claim 17 for work or product in said claim 13?
People have been paying me with pizza and beer for years. This is nothing new.
This patent looks like distribute systems job bidding...isn't this an old idea?
In the current patent climate, it often makes sense to get a patent so somebody else can't, even though there is no plan to charge anyone for its use. One example of this is Richard Garfield's getting a patent on games where a card is turned sideways to show it has been used for the round. Last I checked, other companies are allowed to use this patent without charge, except to include a statement in their rules that the mechanism is patented by its holder.
Of course, this creates situations that might be abused later, but it looks like most cases where a company claims to be establishing a defensive patent, they have stuck to that policy.
Alternately, IBM might be planning to include an exchange of similar patents with other companies - i.e. "use our "paying open source developers" patent, in exchange for us using your patent on "one click inventory transfer", and we'll both declare our respective patents have cash value for the effect it will have on our market pictures. No real money need change hands.".
Maybe IBM has been reviewing its legal positions more than most companies, for some reason or other, and is shoreing up a weak spot in its defenses.
Who is John Cabal?
... IBM will be getting a patent on getting patents on ... (recurse ad infinitum)
licet differant, aequabitur
When you take the fact that IBM has been obtained more patents than any other company for 11 years running and the fact they doubled earnings during their last quarter, they must be doing something right. Since they don't have to pay the Microsoft tax when selling Open Source, they get to keep even more of the pie (I would guess they are not passing _all_ of the Open Source savings on to customers). This "System, method and program product for software development" patent is hilarious, though. It sounds more like an attempt to patent a business relationship between IBM and the coders the wish to exploit.
Is this sig nificant?
This is all about a project to create a new online company to provide an ultra low-friction software funding facility.
This will be for reputable and established companies with small, self-contained, but sophisticated software requirements to obtain services from highly skilled development specialists.
Objectives
The primary objective is to make it as easy as possible for UK based Online Coders to get work. This means making things as easy and as low risk as possible for prospective clients to get their work done.
The current online software marketplace favours medium to large projects (with a usable and visible application being the end result). This pragmatic emphasis on delivery of functionality also favours Asian and Eastern European markets. The UK's software expertise (market edge) is primarily in sophistication and innovation.
Free for coders to browse projects.
OnlineCoders primarily obtains commission when both client and coder are satisfied customers.
A token 100 up-front demonstration of intent from clients. In exchange, the coder is required to match this in order to claim the work.
Client gets to inspect source code prior to payment. In exchange, the client must be ready to complete payment within a week from receiving the source code.
It is suggested that as a contingency measure, the coder should ensure that the code they produce can be republished under the GPL. If the code they deliver contains copyrights incompatible with the GPL then it will not be possible to publish the code for peer scrutiny in cases of dispute.
The source code may utilise open source components. However, the coder agrees to embargo the source code indefinitely and provide copies solely to OnlineCoders and the client. Naturally, if the client wishes to distribute binaries based on the code they must observe the GPL if it applies. Alternatively, they may subsequently contract the coder to produce a completely proprietary version.
No drawn out bidding process. The client states the spec., price and estimated days. The moment a coder accepts, they either meet the spec. within a reasonable time, or they lose their 100 to the client. This makes for a fast turnaround.
Client and coder agree not to seek legal redress or damages in the event of dispute or complaint regarding payment or quality of the software developed, i.e. that the remedies provided by OnlineCoders are sufficient and acceptable.
Low Risk
Low risk for clients. Rapid turnaround, i.e. short period from work offer to delivery and payment.
Low risk for coders. Client's buy 'sold as seen' with no comeback, but can decide not to pay if the code is poor, in exchange for putting their reputation on the line.
How It Works In a Nutshell
Client and Coder agree to exchange software for money and stump up 100 each.
1. If all ends well, OnlineCoders keeps the 200.
2. If the coder defaults, the client gets the 200.
3. If the client defaults, the coder gets the 200, and if the software has already been delivered for evaluation to the client, it is published open source.
If there's a dispute, there's a resolution period, but ultimately one of the three above actions must occur.
The point is, that the client has the advantage of receiving the product prior to payment. If it is of sub-standard quality
Client
Potential client has coding work that needs doing:
The client must be able to specify the work in a document linked to by a URL.
The client must pay OnlineCoders a security of 100.
The client must specify the price they will pay for the completed work (not including the 100 securities which turn into a commission fee for OnlineCoders).
The client must specify the number of working days they believe the work involves. This must not exceed 22 days - projects approaching this magnitude are not considered suitable for Onli
Did I just see the three terms 'paying,' 'open source,' and 'volunteers' in the same sentence!?
Moof.
If you work at IBM and want to make bonus money it is much easier to write articles at Developer Works and get recognition through the Author Awards Program.
Post anonymously - For when your opinion embarrasses even you!
While I doubt this is the case, cold-hard cash isn't the only way to patent something.
I always like the "bubble" concept, where people have to live away from society for testing.
Filtering spam isn't so farfetched, although it would encompass more than that.
It's almost a combination of a barter/request system. Maybe you want a new PC... rather than working, getting paid, you work and get given a spanking PC at the end of the month.
Accomodations? How about having them supplied... which isn't all that uncommon for companies in remote locations (where the town is there pretty much as an operational base).
Food and other amenities could be an issue, but really they'd fit in the same way.
Haven't other projects done something like this? I remember seeing some open OS where people could place 'bounties' on bug reports and whoever fixed it got the money.
Question
http://www.ironfroggy.com/
I've been told that you get to make a big tax write-off if you get a patent. So in the end, the whole patent scheme in corporate America is nothing more then tax legal evasion.
Sure...got any references for that bit?
According to Roger Smith, IBM Assistant General Counsel in "Think" magazine #5, 1990:
This article has the appropriate take on this point:
The real value in patents isn't in collecting license fees, it's in cross-licensing. RMS has talked about this before with his usually astute analysis that is well worth hearing. He too explains, in detail, the real value of amassing a huge library of patents.
Digital Citizen
Aren't there websites which existed prior to the patent filing which hold coding contests (codejams) with prior specified problems, multiple people participating and the fastest correct entry winning?
Do you have any documentation to back that claim up?
Licensing the developers who would ostensibly gain from this funding to deal in the patent without restriction or fee would achieve the same thing, but I am not aware of IBM doing that.
No it wouldn't, because "open source" was defined to work with business, giving businesses a great deal of what they want in order to champion their licenses and chase this movement's message of practical superiority. Fortunately, the most widely used license this movement gave a thumbs-up to--the GNU General Public License--was written by people with software freedom for all computer users at the heart of their movement.
Digital Citizen
Sorry, We'd like to pay you... but that would be patent infringement... now back to work slave! *smack*
I am the AC that posted the parent to your response. I used to work for IBM -- and I've seen ludicruous patents where there was obvious prior art submitted. Maybe some "boards" are better than others, but my division had no such review board, else they didn't do their job. The IBM patent reward system encourages people to try to pat themselves on the back WAY too much.
A popular line in the outsourcing debate is whether Americans will become a nation of burger flippers, but while you cannot outsource local service jobs like burger flipping, such repetitive acts can be performed locally...by the burger-flipping robot that will replace you.
Here are two examples of prior art:
4 _6/kelsey/
1. The 'Street Performer Protocol'
http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue
2. rap-x: Request and Proposal Exchange
http://www.rap-x.com
The first one is a paper that talks about something almost identical to what IBM is suggesting, and the second one is a web-based service that (more or less) offers the functionality described in the SPP.
Can anyone spell 'prior-art'?
M@
i concur (also an IBMer). i've heard from friends who couldn't get anything past their review boards, but i've pushed a couple through my board with surprising ease.
TopCoder uses this system to pay developers who want to participate in their projects. IIRC, their projects are not open source.
Can this sort of thing be patented in the USA? that system is perverted.
My heart is pure, but make no mistake, it's pure evil
Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument what many have claimed: that the patent is only going to be used for defensive purposes. There are two orthogonal interests that might be protected. First, IBM's interests. Second, the interests of open source developers at large.
Now, I think it's pretty safe to say that IBM isn't going to go after anyone just for using some variant on their reward system. But say you're a company that does some open source work as a (not necessarily large) part of its business. Now say you get into it with IBM's Demon Lawyer Horde over some unrelated patent dispute. IBM might not hesitate to use this as leverage.
So I don't buy the "defensive use only" defense, even if that is IBM's true intent. It's not a guarantee that it will always be to the benefit of OSS developers. I would be happy to see a universal, royalty-free license to any and all who desired it.
As previous posters have noted, IBM rewards people for coming up with patents, so maybe somebody is simply padding their in-house resume.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
See, the reason it's a good thing that every single thing that can be conceived of gets patented *today*, is because it's for *the children.*
Not just any children, but for the children of the current generation.
See, all these ridiculous patents (and the reasonable ones as well) are going to expire just as children who are coming into the world right now start to reach the age where they have to work for a living. And LOOK at all the wonderful stuff that will be entering the public domain at the same time!
The only thing left to do is make sure that copyright is freed at the same time!
WE MUST DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Imagine the scene. IBM in court has managed to get the judge to order SCO to hand over all the disputed info. Darl stands there smiling smugly because his brother managed to get a court order that specifies only paid IBM employees can have access to the SCO source.
Well what better way to wipe that smug smile or Darlings face than to legally pay Open Source coders for work they do for IBM. Just dump the code on the kernel developers and before you can say intellectual property one kernel scanned checked and (if required) fixed kernel and a tidy sum delivered straight to the coders bank account.
Paranoid? Maybe. But Gates just got a KBE fior services to the global business (which spent $55 Billion cleaning up the wreckage from viruses last year) so I guess anything's possible
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Not surprised at all. IBM has been using cheap labors under the name "Open Source/Linux" to since day one. Who can sell "free" stuffs for a price better than IBM?
The next thing will be moving all open source developers to India to cut more cost.
I patented a way of giving away patents for free. I'm gonna be rrrrich, baby!.......oh, wait
Table-ized A.I.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The notion of a "defensive patent" in the sense you are using it is utter nonsense. Patenting something gives you no more protection against someone else patenting the same thing as a proper disclosure, and the disclosure is a whole lot cheaper.
"Defensive" patents only make sense if you use the patents as weapons: "we'll sue you over this if you sue us over that". And that is what IBM has been doing traditionally.
From the patent:
Primary Examiner: Nguyen-Ba; Hoang-Vu Anthony
Ok. I know where to make a quick $30-100k whack at the federal budget...
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
this is hilarious, i wonder if i can patent a way to input code onto a processor driven device, by way of tapping keys in a sequence that form device readable tokens?!?!
I thought open-source developers simply write software because they love to and do not seek any compensation. It's amazing how people haven't seen how IBM, Sun, etc. have hijacked true open-source and turned it into a capitalistic weapon. To me, open-source will always be much more than simply being able to see the code and getting software for free. The heart of open-source software has been tarnished by these large corporations that use it to play "price point" wars with each other.
PHPEdit have been doing this since last June, and collecting money exactly this way. User vote for the features they want, some get promoted to being "proposals", then proposals receive financial commitments until there's enough money to do the work.
...[patent porfolio] defensive measure, so that others don't hammer...
Yes, defend against other companies getting too successful in an area that IBM wants to own.
Let's be clear, patents are a weapon that can and are used to preserve and increase corporate profits.
Of course, IBM would be foolish to use them in a way that clearly costs them more than they would get. (e.g., Striking down open source --- in an open way.)
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
...welcome our big blue overlords!
Come on, you dont think IBM, a highly successful company, is supporting Linux for any high ideals, do you? IBM doesnt care to 'stick it to the man', because, for the most part, they are 'the man'.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
So it's sorta like where my insurance company where I have to pay them a fee to pay them? Is there some striking similarity here? Will we save money by switching to sGEIco? -5 Flamebait +.5 Insightful
Most of the areas I've seen where wait-persons are allowed to be paid less than minimum wage, it is mandated that they earn enough in tips, or else the employer pays the difference. *wry grin* Unfortunately, rocking the boat by insisting on said compensation can lead to dismissal in some places. And in others, all tips are shared to simplify bookkeeping, which means you're supporting the deadbeats as well as yourself.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
let's look at it as a wake-up call. This is the *one* area of open source development that the movement has not solved: A central, 'open source' authority/patent-holder to which we can safely patent ideas and hand over that patent to.
Anything that we do could be patentable; individuals with enough money could file for that patent, and hand that patent over to the 'open source' patent provider, who could then ensure that this would be free for us to use in perpetuity.
*THEN* we can start to use the patent system against our competitors, the closed-source world.
Until then, *someone* has to take that patent; whether it be someone with good intentions or bad intentions, it will go. Without some way of ensuring that we can keep 'open source' ideas patented and open to all, we've got no way, short of lengthy court suits and 'prior art' proof, of defending ourselves.
-- A mind is a terrible thing.
Eskimos patent snow
Yum!
"The Milliard Gargantubrain? A mere abacus - mention it not."
SCO patents a method to make money from Open Source without even selling a product! Litigation!
bau bau chicka chicka mau mau