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?"

Comments

Patents are bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you want to get paid for developing free software you should move to Europe where methods are not patentable (yet).

Defensive?

[kid-noodle]

One would hope they've done this defensively, to stop some (other?) evil corporation patenting it first and banjaxing things?

I said hope.

Re:Defensive?

[KDan]

IBM do that a lot. And they are a major supporter of Linux and Open Source in general - I would say it's pretty safe to assume it's a defensive patent. After all, IBM is renowned for patenting more things every year than you can shake a stick at...

Daniel

The Framers Had It Right

[Dark Paladin]

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.

Re:The Framers Had It Right

[Auckerman]

Inventions. An actual item that can be built in the real world.

Computers that fit a specific task fall in this category. By extension, so does software (which do real world tasks). That is essentially why I'm not totally against software patents. As long as they solve real world problems in a non-obvious way, they are fair game.

Re:The Framers Had It Right

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because software is math and written language. You cannot patent a book, song or anything else so why should you be able to patent a piece of software? The compiled binary argument is utter garbage, so don't bother replying if thats the best you can do.

Furthermore the idea of a patent is public disclosure of the 'invention' (and I use the term loosely thanks to the cretins at the USTPO), so where is source code for software patents? The patent applications are written in obfuscated lawyerspeak and are complete nonsense to the majority of the people 'skilled in the art'.

Re:The Framers Had It Right

[Anonymous Coward]

A technical drawing is an instruction to build a physical object. A computer program is a series of instructions to perform a given task. Converting a blueprint to Gcodes for manufacture on a CNC will give you a program capable of producing the finished physical object to which the patent applies, but the instructions themselves would not be covered. Thanks for coming up with an outstanding example of why software patents are wrong ;-)

With embedded devices and purpose built hardware there is arguably some room for debate. Increasingly such devices are built using generic programmable chips. It's impossible to draw a firm line therefore "NO SOFTWARE PATENTS" seems like the only sensiable conclusion, to me anyway.

Could be a good thing

[wizarddc]

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.

Re:Could be a good thing

[iminplaya]

"Think what Microsoft would do with this. They would kill Open Source, or do their damndest to do it, with the new tool."

And what makes you think that IBM won't do the same thing? Just because they support open source now, doesn't mean they always will. Like that warning about the stock market...Past performance is no guarantee(sp)...

Re:Patents help.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

But overall, we must admit, that patents generally are a good thing.

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 ... 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.

Re:IBM

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

IBM holds zillions of patents they don't enforce. Take a look at some of the lame ones they pulled out in reference to the SCO case. Really, it's just fodder for when you really piss them off.

Re:Wow.

[saden1]

Hay, better them then some idiot out of no where right? We all know the open source community can turn on you on a dime and I am sure IBM knows this. IBM will probably put the patent out on public domain and say something like "it's a gift to the open source community."

You're unfamiliar with IBM patenting

[melted]

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.

Re:Note to Recent Grads

[Anonymous Coward]

The company will probably outsource your ass in a couple of weeks.

Re:IBM

[smittyoneeach]

No, it could be likely a defensive measure, so that others don't hammer them.
Too, if you're a hardware vendor, stuff like this and OSDL make a truckload of sense.
Particularly if you have received a Massive Stab wound in your back Over Something, Too.

Re:Wow.

[njfuzzy]

There is no point in applying for a patent if you are going to put it in the public domain. Doing that dissolves the patent. On the other hand, making it available under a free license might make sense. They control who gets it, but basically opens it up. That would probably work.

Re:Note to Recent Grads

[GoofyBoy]

Good for you.

Sometimes swallowing your pride is the best thing to do in the long term.

Re:heh

[VojakSvejk]

Really?
Apple
RedHat
TurboLinux
Yellowdog
SuSE ...

Method Patent and IBM

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Wow.

[dillon_rinker]

Putting it in the public domain means no one else can patent it. It doesn't dissolve the patent.

no point in applying for a patent

[dpilot]

Actually, there is.

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 /. 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.

That said, I have no idea whatsoever what IBM's motives are in seeking this patent.

Re:I don't see the problem

[TheRealMindChild]

I think you misunderstand the whole scope of what a patent is. What I am referring to is called a Utility Patent. They last for less then 20 years (17 years I think) and it must be a NEW invention, layed out in DETAIL, and be NOT Obvious to a skilled person.

A good example is the Xerox machine. The method of which it was patented, you could NOT USE THE PROCESS in which this machine made copies. Another is Poloroid's Instant Developing Film. These companies made lots of money, and rightfully so, by innovation of a process.

Hmm.

[BoneFlower]

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.

Re:IBM

[BoneFlower]

exactly- pure defense.

If IBM uses this system, didnt patent it, they could be screwed if someone else "invents" it two years from now and sues IBM over it. This way, that case begins and ends with the words "Case Dismissed". A patent gives you a crystal clear prior art defense.

Not naive at all

[fm6]

That's probably exactly what they have in mind. You can use IP law to sequester something (the source code for Windows) or you can use it to control the way other people use it (the source code for Linux). Sequestration gets all the headlines, but there wouldn't be any free/open source software without intelligent use of the IP laws.

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!

Re:IBM

[Java Pimp]

IBM didn't patent "Paying Open Source Developers." You can still pay people to develop open source software.

They patented a method of attracting and paying volunteers for their effort while providing incentive for others to volunteer and contribute to an open source project.

Re:Note to Recent Grads

[eln]

Not to get you down or anything, but it's really not wise to describe something as your "dream job" until you've been there for at least a couple of years. A "dream" job can quickly become a nightmare.

I've seen many, many people get jobs they thought would be their dream jobs, only to become quickly disillusioned and depressed when the job did not live up to the high standards they had set for it in their own mind.

Anyway, congratulations on the new job, and I hope it ends up being as good as you hope.

Re:IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not true. "Being told by someone" isn't the same as finding the actual tax laws that state this, is it?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hmmmmm . . .

[CaptainTux]

The heart of open-source software has been tarnished by these large corporations that use it to play "price point" wars with each other

I don't understand your statement. Perhaps to you open source is about writing software simply because you love writing code but that certainly isn't the founding principal that got this ball rolling. Open Source is about freedom It is about the freedom to do what you want with your code (even sell it or be paid to write it) and it is about your customers freedom to use it as they need or see fit. Not one of the OSS licenses even hints that the software should be free -- even idealy. In fact, the GPL actually addresses the "do I have to give my software away" because the authors knew it would come up. The answer? No, you don't.

To be totally honest here I think the current movement of people who demand OSS be free and that OSS developers don't get paid or it's not "true OSS". Bull! There is nothing at all corrupt or wrong about making money off of OSS code. How can we rave about "OSS is about freedom" and then complain when someone excercises that freedom in a way we don't like BUT is in no way incompatible? We can't.