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
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
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?
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.
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.
In other news, today Microsoft patented paying people with Xboxes and MCSE courses.
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
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.