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
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
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.
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
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
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.!
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.
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.
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
will I own them or do I have to buy a license?
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.
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.
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
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.
Anyone wishing to pay open source volunteers must buy a $699 license from SCO.
signed
Darl
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
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.
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.
In other news, today Microsoft patented paying people with Xboxes and MCSE courses.
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.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
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
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
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!
Here's the the link again.
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.
I worked for IBM and you are WRONG 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..
I worked for IBM less than a year ago, and I can confirm that our business unit at the very least was paying people for patents. Don't you expect your information to be somewhat out of date if you got laid off "a few years ago?" Perhaps you are spreading quite a bit of false information yourself.
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!
I was laid off in the last Software Group batch (Dec 19). Patents are still compensated something like $1000/pop. Every project cycle before and after the patent evangelist shows up to ask all the developers if anything can be filed. The laywers will often split patents into two filings (for example one for screen I/O and one for printed I/O).
I know several IBMers that have abused the patent office by filing obvious claims and been rewarded thousands of dollars by the company. Most have been promoted to managers.
And now I don't have to post anonymously anymore! Don't y'all feel a little silly being unable to discuss IBM's policies with you own names? I mean y'all are just saying what the BOV instructor did when you were hired on.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"