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

Note to Recent Grads

[fine09]

One more reason you should take a job with McDonalds.

Re:Note to Recent Grads

[JargonScott]

When my brother graduated from undergrad, an older prof. at the gym he went to asked what his degree was. "Psychology", he answered. The old prof. said "Oh, that's nice. I hear Wendy's is hiring."

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.

IBM

[Ianoo]

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.

Re:IBM

[Aumaden]

This is almost certainly a "defensive" patent. Simply by obtaining the patent IBM prevents anyone else from hamstringing the development community.

Preventing OSD would be very much against IBM's best interests.
However...

Imagine if SCO owned this patent. They would be doing their best to extort anyone trying to pay open source developers.

Re:IBM

[Carnage4Life]

And they hold zillions which they do enforce. You should read up on IBM and Software Patents sometime. A number of software companies could learn a thing or two about monetizing their intellectual property from IBM [if that was their thing].

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.

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.

One thing to bear in mind...

[TWX]

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.

Microsoft

[chunkwhite86]

Next thing you know Microsoft is going to sue IBM for infringing on their patented methods of preventing OSS workers from getting paid.

In other news...

[uucp2]

...SCO patents method for being paid by Open Source workers

sounds exactly like topcoder

[kesteloot]

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

The fault: The IBM patent reward system

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Wow.

[dillon_rinker]

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

Re:The fault: The IBM patent reward system

[nedwidek]

Speaking as an IBM employee, you've only got part of that right. Yes there are monetary rewards for a filing and then when the patent is awarded, but you're 100% wrong when it comes to the spamming. Each division at each site has a patent review board. You have to first convince this board that you are on to something (Having been involved in the process I can say it is not easy and most get shot down at this point). Next you are referred to IBM legal for the writing of the patent application and a prior art search. Only if you've made it to this point does the filing go in.

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.