Slashdot Mirror
IBM Has 'No Intention' of Using Patents Against Linux
bendelo writes "In his keynote address on Wednesday at LinuxWorld, IBM Senior Vice President of Technology and Marketing Nick Donofrio assured the Linux nation his company would not assert its formidable patent portfolio against the Linux kernel and strongly advocated others to promise the same. This comes following an independent study by insurance firm OSRM who revealed this week that the Linux kernel might use up to 283 patented methods. This seems a smart move by the Big Blue to help counter the FUD going around." A zdnet.com.com story has a response from Bruce Perens, who basically says he wants to see it in writing. :)
IBM has no intentions of using patents against Linux.
I mean... it's a very nice gesture and all, but if this is where we're headed, what's the point of software patents at all? Making exceptions to rules generally nullifies the power a rule has.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
For what possible reason would having it in writing be beneficial to Linux?
Is Linux somehow immune to IPR lawsuits because of its open source nature?
I thought this news was coming from Linux allies?
It's far from FUD but a serious concern that needs to be addressed one way or another.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
There's actually a large corporation out there that, at least occasionally, thinks about more than thier bottom line.
IBM has no intention of asserting its patent portfolio against the Linux kernel, unless of course we are forced to defend ourselves (emphasis added)," said Nick Donofrio...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
where is it, i wanna move there, geographically speaking
How would IBM saying that they won't use their patents against Linux assure the general population that Linux might come crashing down due to patent pressure?
If anything it does the opposite.
If anything it will convince the public that, maybe IBM won't destroy Linux due to patent violations. But IBM ARE saying that some comapnies have the ability to do so
And those companies might not be so gracious.
I agree with Perens, I'd like to see it in writing as well. Everyone likes riding on the shoulders of IBM as if they're some savior. You can almost here the oss fighters telling themeselves "finally, a big guy in the corner for the little guy fighting for the cause".
clue for the clueless, IBM is in it for IBM, if the tide ever changes and oss's destruction becomes favorable for IBM don't expect any mercy.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
IBM cannot assert any of it's patents against linux, since they:
1. Contributed to the linux kernel
2. Would look very silly and incongruent for going against something it uses to make money
This is just counter-FUD to keep IBM's linux customers satisfied.
I can assure you we have no intention of asserting our patents against the Linux kernel, unless, of course, we are forced to defend ourselves.
So if Linux starts to eat into AIX?? or is that if people sue them?
This is from the VP of Technology and marketing, sure I believe everything the marketing guys tell me. My bet is that they really do plan on using their patents, but only when enough people have invested in Linux to make it pay off.
Everyone who has ever owned or worked in business knows that a promise is nothing... Business is all about contracts, IBM might have well not said anything at all. What they need to do is sign a contract with FSF or some other big open source software org.
Microsoft has no intention to release all source code and blow up Redmond.
Intel has no intention of changing its slogan to "Not As Good As AMD Inside".
RIAA has no intention of suing its customers- wait...
Differences between women and big companies:
Big Companies Definition of 'No Intention':
I do not plan on doing any thing until it is more profitable for me to sue them
Women's Definition of 'No Intention':
Never in a million years are you going to get it any more.
The two most powerful forces in the world constantly keeping us down!
is paved with good intentions.
Karma (the real stuff) is governed by intention. IBM has generated a lot of good karma with their work with Linux. This speech seems like IBM knows that a huge shitstorm is on the horizon and they want to polish their image before it hits.
Laws are for people with no friends.
Bruce Perens ... basically says he wants to see it in writing
;-)
Well quite. What reason have we got to trust IBM? Just because their current business interests are tied in with the Linux kernel, it doesn't follow that they're never going to attack any Free Software project with patents. They even added the proviso that they won't attack the kernel "unless, of course, we are forced to defend ourselves"!
An executive making a promise like that at a trade show is more or less meaningless. Now if they signed a legal agreement with the Free Software Foundation promising never to attack any GPL-ed project, or even just with the kernel guys, there'd be something to celebrate here.
And of course the wider issue is that they should lobby against software patents full-stop; they damage Free and proprietary software alike, mostly affecting small and medium businesses and community projects. But of course IBM is never going to do that
Does that constitute a binding agreement, and if so doesn't that give Linux an essentially free license to use any IBM software patents?
Hmmm....
MadCow
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I don't like the tone of this. If Linux has done something wrong and used someones prior art then come and proof it - else STFU.
I sure there quite possibly is someones prior art in Linux but this has to be played out in courts sooner or later. I'd rather get it over a done with now - it will quite possibly show the stupidity of software patents to all.
----
It does seem that lately Linux is getting more and more support from some pretty large/well known companies. I kinda wonder if this was not, at least to some extent, driven by the whole SCO flap. It sorta gave everyone a common enemy and a common cause.
Perhaps I have a penchant for the ironic, but wouldn't it be something if SCO turned out to be instrumental in bringing Linux to the mainstream?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
The GPL, which IBM has accepted by distributing Linux, seems already to prohibit them from asserting patent claims against Linux users. No?
Share and Enjoy: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Mind you, it just sounds a little more serious than if it had been claimed by Eric Raymond.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
So they are giving up persuing their IP and other rights against Linux, and that was their choice. It is too bad they also have a vested interest as pontificators and deployers of Linux and related support services. If IBM had done this BEFORE they embraced Linux this would have been much more meaningful.
I do see a problem though, and it goes to a Linux fork. If such a beast happened it would lack the IBM blessing by default. Now all this of course could be good to prevent the *NIX self balkanization that occured with other vendors in the past. On the other hand what if for instance Linux dies and two core groups of programmers split (perhaps along kernel developement lines) and one wants to start a new "Linux" fork? Now multiply this by various patent holders. Do you want them dictating the future of Linux?
Moral of the story software patents are bad for opensource/free software.
but I don't think the biggest fear is that IBM as a company that makes money out of linux will try to destroy it using patents but that companies loosing business because of linux will try to do so.
Again, nice statement but pretty useless. If IBM really would like to help they should join the fight against software patents, which of course they won't do as the company holding the most patents related to computers.
So they are in a tricky position, they understandably want to hold on to their patent assets but at the same time they jeopardice their investment and commitment to linux with this policy.
I think they are thinking about their bottom line. I believe IBM stands to benefit from Linux becoming more mainstream.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Or at least IBM should place some serious caveats on any promises. IBM could use it's patent portfolio to defend Linux against patent assault and we shouldn't want to lose that ability. Is someone starts asserting patent rights over Linux IBM's protfolio could be used defensively to to make counterclaims. This is Linux's biggest weakness, it holds no patents and therefore is vulnerable to claims although not being a single entity makes this impossible to enforce.
Patents in the past have been used mostly defensively. Most large companies either had mutual agreement to share patents or they went ahead and used the patented ideas of other companies knowing that the other companies used their patented ideas too. Thus the result of a lawsuit would be a wash. Now with MS and IBM building such huge patent portfolios it's getting a bit scarry for Linux and other Open Source projects. This announcement is encouraging, however. With Big Blue's huge patent portfolio (and Novell's) it could actually take on Microsoft on the behalf of Linux. In effect Big Blue would step in whenever a lawsuit was threatened and say to Microsoft, "Back off or will prevent you from using this IP which you have incorporated into X, Y and Z products." Why would they do that? Because IBM now needs Linux. Linux is one of IBM's OSs now and it has to defend it. The big question the is whether IBM could somehow hijack Linux using IP. Could IBM become the only vendor legally capable of delivering a useful version of Linux. Sure it would cripple Linux in the long run but Big Blue isn't known for being smart all the time.
I expect IBM will probably follow through on this, but really a statement of no intentions is basically meaningless. Corporations are ruled by the concept of shareholder value, and can and do basically justify anything legal and a lot that's not, regardless of what they've said or done in the past, under that banner. I'd advise the Linux community to keep an eye on plan B.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
The reason being, unsurprisingly, there will be companies that will not follow their advice, and when Linux starts to really threaten their business model, will use their patent "portfolio" against it.
At that point someone with a comparable size portfolio will have to stand up and politely ask that compan(y|ies) to please be nice to Linux.
Oh really? Do you pinky swear? With cherries on top?!
Always get it in writing.
It's time to take a release of the 2.6.x Linux kernel and get the CEOs of IBM,Sun,Novell,Redhat,Mandrake and any other organizations who which to join in, to distribute a copy of the source of the Linux kernel to each other and to Linus/OSDN for a token monetary amount. This would formally enact the terms of the GPL license, which effectively ensures that upstream distributers grant an implicit license to downstream recipients to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets the Linux kernel uses under the terms of the GPL.
That does seem to be a disadvantage to how Linux development is organized. If IBM were to put it in a written contract, who would the other party be?
I'd like to see Linux become owned by a non-profit that's run by the community members. Or something. Give Linux a legal presence.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
This is a good first step. As a second step, I'd like to see IBM add "...and we intend to use our patent portfolio to whack anyone who tries to use their patents against Linux."
Long term, I'd like to see corporate open source participants enter a "patent pool." You want to use OSS? You have to waive your patent rights. Perhaps a new version of the GPL could do to patents what it has already done to copyrights.
And of course, the true solution is that software patents should be abolished entirely. But as long as the Gates/Bush Corporate Empire rules the not-so-free world, that won't happen.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
A _marketing_ guy makes no decisions on this .. This statement can easily be reversed or "narrowly interpreted".
.. and people are buying into it. LOL.
This is merely creating publicity that's all
Currently IBM has thousands of developers working with linux. It would simply be uneconomical for them to try to get rid of it.
From the article:
He cited a recent economic study that stated some 91 million new jobs would be created in the coming years, but that it is yet to be determined in which countries most of those jobs would be based.
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that many of the best jobs will go to those countries that create the most fertile environments for innovation," Donofrio said.
"Innovation"? Its better to have a fertile environment for the least cost man-power.
There are only so many high-level, innovative people are going to be required in the "coming years".
And if the nation where these jobs are created are yet to be determined (so they are not location-based), lowest-cost will win almost everytime.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
If IBM really doesn't intend to use it's patents against Linux, IBM should take the necessary legal steps to make it impossible for it to do so, such as giving a non-revokable perpetual license to Linux to use the specified patents. If IBM is serious than this will only cost them some lawyer time to draw up the necessary papers. It will also protect them from someone else saying "Well, they didn't object to Linux using their patent, so it shouldn't apply to me either.
IBM might currently be one of the good guys, but it wasn't so long ago that IBM was the big computer company we all loved to hate. Management and business models change. When they do, as we've seen with SCO, companies past promises get thrown out the window.
Here's hoping that IBM makes good on this promise and sets a real example for other companies to follow.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Kind of clever of IBM - by not attacking Linux they can probably make a case to promote their hardware running linux.
Also, they said they won't attack the kernel, which could mean IBM hardware + linux kernel + IBM/3rd-party software is what they have in mind.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Seriously, we need it in writing ... Unisys said the same thing (in writing) about GIFs and backtracked.
.. having it in legal writing is better than nothing. And right now we have nothing.
CEO's change etc. Make up of companies change. Even a written statement could easily be "reinterpreted" etc. by highly paid lawyers.
But still
While I salute IBM for making this claim, I agree with Bruce Perens in wanting it in writing.
Back in 1980 I was working at IBM. At one meeting, hosted by an IBM VP, he explicitly stated that "IBM had no intention of getting into the PC business". This was at the time when the Apple (and other micros) were all the rage.
Now, some wags could say that he was right, and that IBM never did really did enter the PC business. But within the next couple of years, the IBM PC was released.
So verbal intentions like this are meaningless. Let us see it in writing.
, and that is very possible, hell it is even likely. but from what i know, IBM and microsoft have much bad blood between them. (stemming from microsofts walking away from os2, which left ibm with a huge investment in an unfinished product) now IBM has made a huge commitment to legitimize linux, by offering money support etc, this helps their business model which is a service based one at that. they make more money offering support if linux succedes. IBM supports many of the fortune 500 companies american express etc. now if microsoft goes throwing patent infringment lawsuits against a software that is pivotal in their growth market why would they invest the time to build it up in the first place? so they could get money from suing it later on ? come on now, be realistic.. IBM wants linux to succede, and microsoft to lose ground. to make a blanket statement we will not use the patents against linux would be foolish and dangerous as they cannot see the future of all things, however i do not believe it is their intention and they came up very quickly and asked others to do the same. does this seem like a smoke screen to shade their ultimate plan... c olor me naive but i think ibm has a business model here that involves linux succeding...
If this is true, then maybe they can provide a fund to provide 100 patents to the open source community. Then some of the groups will have the start of a patent profile which can then be cross licensed to IBM in a formal way to make sure they can't change their mind.
The F/OSS world is built largely on trust. We could debate contracts, indemnification and other legal instruments all day, but at the end of that day, Linux and other major F/OSS project circle right back to trust.
Bruce Perens would do well to remember all that IBM has done for Linux, from a technical standpoint, to a marketing one, finally to a legal one. Had SCO chosen a smaller company, say a Red Hat, they would have had a far better chance of winning their lawsuit - because lawsuits come bak to money, and with Microsoft's filthy lucre in their vaults, SCO would have had more than Red Hat and thus a better chance in court. Instead, it was IBM that committed the resources, legal, financial and corporate, to keep Linux alive.
That said, their intention is clear -- IBM wants Linux to succeed and to become a major player in at least the data center. It has, and with the numerous and important contributions to the kernel and other ancillary tools, Linux is now close to being the equal of the evolved UNIx's -- Solaris, for example. Without IBM, would Linux be much more than a small server or hobbyist's tool?
IBM's word is good enough for me for now. Sure, I would love to see their promise etched in stone, but their word has been good before, we should believe it good now.
Finally, about their reservation of their right to sue, if they need: let's not forget that IBM also makes closed source software. They should preserve the right, should they need to use it, to prevent a competitor or even business ally from contribution of proprietary code to the Linux base. After all, even though IBM is a great friend of Linux and open source generally, they also need to preserve other revenue streams. All that they said was that they would do just that, and that's not a bad thing in my view.
Thanks, IBM, for saying you wouldn't hammer Linux with your wide portfolio. I hope it puts pressure on other companies to do the same. Microsoft would do well to follow suit -- they have benefitted from OSS whether they want to admit it or not, and they should not try to kill what has fed them either.
I'll remind you that europe and austrailia are both adopting US-style patent systems, and that effectively leaves no-where to run to if you're european, austrailian or american.
Don't fret, China is poised to overtake the US as the world's number #1 economic power within the next decade based on the our 3% GDP growth rate vs. China's 9% growth rate. At that point, we'll all be adopting a Chinese-style patent system. Guess I'd better learn some mandarin so I'm ready for the Chinese outsourcing boom.
Patents should really be used IMHO to protect a designer, inventor or R&D department from having their revolutionary ideas stolen by other companies. Having their product cloned and sold cheaper basically because the other company doesn't have the research costs.
But what about coincidences? if two inventors come up with the same idea and one manages to get the patent before the other?
What about prior art, it's not hard to imagine a situation at the moment where a company could look at an idea in the Linux kernel, patent it and then use that patent against Linux.
IBM licensed at least one of its patents to Linux. So you might say that they own Linux to the extent that you can't really do a significant fork on Linux because although the copyrights might be tranferable under terms of the GPL, I don't think the patent licenses are.
That would be bad for IBM.
They want to be able to use them if they are sued.
Imagine Linux becomes 'THE' OS. A computer company sues IBM for patent infringement, IBM can strike back hard with the infringing parts of Linux.
This is a very good position for them to be in, I can't imagine them giving it up lightly.
"... his company would not assert its formidable patent portfolio against the Linux kernel and strongly advocated others to promise the same ..."
...
I'm not a lawyer but
I'm under the impression that a patent is only as good as your ability and willingness to enforce it. That is to say, if you don't enforce your patent with one entity, you can't enforce it with any entity. To say that to say that your company has 'no intention' of exercising it's patents against one organization, is to say that the patents will not be used against any organization; making the patents useless.
It would seem, to make a promise of this scale would be bad for one's patent portfolio. More over, wouldn't it be bad legal advise to give to other organizations?
I would think that the more appropriate action would be to explicitly grant licenses to use these patents.
Cheers,
--The Dude
Uh why can't IBM assert its patents against linux.
The GPL only requires you to distribute the code under the same terms, it doesn't include a mandatory patent license.
This is the patent hole in the GPL.
IBM should also man up and start a patent pool for free software. It's about time. This is just another roadbump to try to buy MS time to get their cow, "longhorn" out the door.
Patents to the left of them!
Patents to the right of them!
Patents in front of them!
Litigation and lawsuits!
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
I don't recall IBM ever deploying a patent infringement before countersuing SCO. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention. The countersuit against SCO is explicitly in defense of the GPL.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
The promise they give here (worth the wobbles in the air it was transmitted by) is to not use the offensive capacity - it would be much, much more interesting if they started using their much higher value defensive capacity.
Oh, and if they covered *BSD - as I'm totally uninterested in using Linux ;-)
Eivind.
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Have you ever heard of SCO? Just imagine if they had any patents that they could have used. Replace "IBM" with "SCO" in your statements.
Now I am not putting IBM on the same level as SCO, but businesses look out for themselves. There is no altruism in business.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Groklaw has a much more detailed article.
/. was first to post the news. :P
But then I'd be very surprised if
"goatse? What's that? Anyone have a link?" - AC
There is no free lunch.
Lawyers will see to it that projects such as Linux (when used in commercial settings) don't infringe on patents. If Linux is found to be infringing, then someone will owe someone else a lot of money. It's really that simple.
Linux is great. Free and Open Source SW is great. But once it gets outside the realm of geeks and into major corps like IBM, HP and Sun... it's a totally different ballgame. Instead of Joe Geek using Linux in his parent's basement... we now have companies such as Merryl Lynch, Diamler Chrysler and Auto Zone using it. The DOD uses it. It's turning into a big-time OS. Now, big-time lawyers will begin focusing on it more and more.
Pretty soon, Linux as we know it won't exist. They'll be another, better, freer OS that only geeks use once again.
IBM has no intentions of using patents against Linux.
It's more than just a good will gesture. It is also fear of possible backlash from the Linux nation, as the author put it.
this seems a smart move by the Big Blue to help counter the FUD going around
FUD, "fear, uncertainty, doubt" generally is used in the context where said fears, uncertainties, and doubts are unwarranted.
However, in this case, the danger to Linux is very, very real. Of the 283 patents Linux potentially infringes upon (220 or so once you remove IBM's), there is a very high likelihood that at least a few of them will be completely valid, and that they'll (distros, users, developers, etc.) be sued. Just think of SCO, only with valid claims this time.
The current "ignore the problem and hope it goes away" attitude of many of the core Linux developers (this includes "show us the code, and we'll remove it") does not help. They (developers/distros) should be proactively attempting to remove any patented code (or, alternatively, challenge in court/patent office, or get a license)..
For hobbyists and home users, Linux's patent troubles aren't significant, but for any government of large company considering adopting Linux, it's a very big issue.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
I consider ideas to be real innovation, and they are not always easy. However, in a sense I agree with you. There is a short supply of implementations, but an abundant supply of ideas. U.S. law has not seen fit to make ideas patentable for this very reason. Since academics and others gladly publish ideas without the need for a temporary monopoly, you do not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by granting patents.
For this reason, abstract ideas, mathematical algorithms, and their embodiment in computer software have never been statutory material for patents, erroneous rulings by lower courts (contradicting the US Supreme Court) notwithstanding. Interestingly, this means that if the EU ratifies software patents, they will be the first political entity where such patents are truly valid.
(Of course, don't take this as legal advice. To defeat software patents you would have to get the US Supreme Court to take another case, which they haven't done since 1981.)
Yup, they have "no intentions" - which does not mean that they will not do so in the future. While I am not saying that IBM is being sneaky and trying to lull people into a false state of safety - it should be noted that "no intentions" means just that - they are not intending on suing...which means it could change
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
"nd then there is the GUI. KDE is a patent disaster waiting to happen"
This is all built on top of QT which is a commercial company. I am sure that it is in their best interests to avaoid patents issues.
"they can stretch this shit out for decades. Or until your legal fund is depleted)"
Deplete my legal fund...I will use public defenders to death do me part.
"Since it has no future, my time will be better spent learning and using XP."
What the hell is there to learn...point click..bingo
"The Good Fight has been fought, and lost, folks. "
Whos fighting. Do you really think IBM would spend a billion dollars a year if they thought open source was going to crash and burn?
what?
For all the lawyer bashing that goes on here, I'm surprised nobody bashes the insurance companies. Their normal behavior is far worse than that of any half-decent lawyer, and this is just another example.
All he said was the kernel. Onbe word, covers only a part of what is going on now. That leaves distro releasers/developers, and all the other aspects that go into an OS that are still an open target for future actions.
Don't trust them. Use them as they are using "you", but never,ever trust them.
If IBM and the other big companies that are currently "embracing open source" were SERIOUS about it, they would be using their flocks of lawyers and lobbyists to try and get the copyright and patent laws changed-and they aren't.
Actions or words, two different things
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Ok.. time to face up to the truth... Microsoft personnel descovered /.
Well, I can't see through all of this FUD...
Were you trying to be funny or just annoying ?
If what you were saying were true, then nobody would have been scared of Unisys enforcing GIF patents, because they had left them unenforced for so long. You're clearly thinking of trademarks, and illustrating Stallman's point that lumping copyright, trademarks and patents under "Intellectual Property" causes confusion.
The History of Software Patents.
Can't patent Mathematical Algorithms.
Software isn't THE process. Software simply executes a process by means of mathematical expressions/algorithms.
...if IBM chooses not to defend it against all violators?
Here is a sampling of large corps and some of the other stuff they also think about:
..market share...market share...
SUN: How to crush Microso...er, enemies.
Microsoft:
Diebold: Who do we want to win the next election?
As you can see, there are plenty of other motiv^H^H..er, objectives for corporations to ponder over. You could compare profits with gas for a car - you don't go far without it.
True about SCO, but look at point #2 and tell me that SCO doesn't look silly and isn't the laughingstock of other tech corporations.
IBM wouldn't want to make themselves look that bad.
assured the Linux nation his company would not assert its formidable patent portfolio against the Linux kernel
Consider:
1) How many people use the term 'Linux' to include GNOME, Apache, Sendmail, PostgreSQL, Mozilla, et la.
2) How useless the Linux Kernel is all by itself.
IBM's announcement is rather useless. If they said they would not use their patents VS Open Source packages, then they'd have something.
You've got to love that phrase "no intention".
Hearing makes me want to reply
I understand why it's used: the person talking cannot speak authoritatively for the organization.
Still annoying, though.
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
I have to agree. Yes, software patents abuse is so ridiculous that they should be abdoned. Yes, that's lot of trash talk. BUT it is danger. I don't understand attacks to Bruce Perens - he pointed out DANGER. And it IS danger. Don't matter how do you try to spin it. Oh, yeah, he is making business of it. BUT he is not HIDING problem.
And it is NOT FUD.
So, there is a masterplan. Stop software patents ASAP. There's no common good for them, only harm. Don't like it? Well, it is how it is. You can't choose nice parts of truth and throw the rest away.
About IBM - ok, it's nice that they say that, and I agree that I think they won't do that but it doesn't correct problem anyway.
There is lot of nukes in the world. Now that Russia has no will to attack US or other Western countries with them doesn't make me sleep better anyway. There is STILL danger from them.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
This is all built on top of QT which is a commercial company. I am sure that it is in their best interests to avaoid patents issues.
You're dissembling. QT is the underlying library, not the GUI itself. The design of KDE (startbar, koffice, etc) is such a blatant rip-off of MS-WINDOWS that I'd be very surprised if it were not the first to go down in flames once the patent wars start.
Deplete my legal fund...I will use public defenders to death do me part.
Public defenders do not handle IP/Patent cases.
Whos fighting.
Red Hat, the FSF, your various "foundations" such as the debian and netbsd foundation.
All of which are based on programs which are going to be litigated out of existence within a very few , short years.
I'm sorry but without sounding trollish - big whoops.
This doesn't mean a thing. Just because they say they won't doesn't mean that they actually won't.
After all, what is to stop IBM getting a new Vice President of Technology and Marketing who decides to take the company in a completely different direction which negates this promise?
Yes, you could argue all day long about how it wouldn't make sense, be very silly, bite the hand that feeds it etc.etc. but it still is a possibility.
By all means be happy that they've said it, but if their stance does change (and if it suddenly turns out that the current strategy isn't good for IBM, then it will change) don't be the least bit surprised.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
IBM is betting the farm on Linux. The big statement here is the "strongly advocated others to promise the same" part.
I see that as a veiled threat of retailation if someone goes after Linux with patents. IBM stands to lose large amounts of money if they are unable to sell their clients Linux solutions.
Also, I strongly believe that IBM is Linux's only home of surviving the coming patent war. IBM will have to step up to the plate to defend Linux if Microsoft goes on the patent attack. I aslo belive this is why Microsoft hasen't attacked yet.
Another thing to look for is IBM's new processor. With this new core architecture being touted as revolutionary, they could patent the algorithms for basic processing of instructions on this thing and require every OS that uses it to pay roalties. That is a great deal of potential leverage for the future (along with being a good example of why software patents should be illegal).
MS desperate for a way to get at Linux and now having a broader basis for their billions then just Windows, sells IBM ownership of Windows XP (or even a portion of its patents) for next to nothing. IBM suddenly has an incredibly lucrative reason to consider Linux competition. After all owning the OS that sits on a large percentage of desktops is powerful especially when you already own most of the hardware patents.
IBM does currently have a business model that involves the success of Linux. They aren't supporting Linux right now because they believe in the ideas of Richard Stallman and the FSF, they're doing it because it makes sense for them commercially. Because of that, if their business needs change they could turn in an instant.
Now if they promised not to sue all open source projects, that might mean something. Remember, Open Source isn't just about the Linux Kernel.
Lets see them promise not to sue Jonas, JBoss, Postgresql, and any other future projects. If someone came up with an OpenSphere suite that rivaled WebSphere, do you really think they're patent lawyers will be sitting idle?
Open Source Java DAO Generator
"For IBM's part, we pledge to do everything in our power to help stroke that balance. I can promise you that," Donofrio said.
Could you repeat that Bruce? I couldn't hear you over the deafening rattle coming from IBM's sabre.
Ease up a little, it's good to have friends.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
"IBM has no intentions of using patents against Linux."
... but what about other OSS projects? Nothing was said and that's not good.
Nice and all
Deplete my legal fund...I will use public defenders to death do me part
HAHAHAHA! Oh God. That's a good one. That's a _real_ good one.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I've seen it before.m l
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-884681.ht
Rather than IBM saying it will never attack Linux with patents, I would rather they say that they'll *defend* Linux and some open source projects with their patents.
In fact as patents become a bigger and bigger shadow over software, groups like Novell, IBM and maybe Sun should look at building some sort of defensive patent system for major open source projects.
Although I imagine that if a company has invested enough in an open source project that it'll spring to its defence anyway, a la IBM defending the kernel from SCO.
In fact, the Court also cited the continuous measurement of temperature as novel.
This, not whether software is patentable, is what separated the majority from the dissent. The dissent writes,
Yep. IBM talks about "Linux". Do they mean the kernel? Well, the kernel alone is useless. Do they mean whatever is running on Linux? That's a fucking lot and includes lots and lots of software that has never been checked for patents it may conflict with.
So, having IBM talk about Linux with regard to patents does mean nothing. Make IBM say "we will never use patents against any Free Software" and we can start to discuss. Just that we will never hear that from IBM, because you can be sure that IBM (and anyone else) will use patents against any Free Software that starts to threat their own profits. That's just business.
What IBM actually says is "we will not use patents against any software as long as we profit from doing so" which does mean nothing else than "we won't use patents against ourselves", which actually goes without saying.
In short: Forget it.
If you keep reading that page, *and* download
the files, you can see that what they offer for download
are just *patches* against the official,
Linus tree, not the kernel itself. They also
fell prey to the temptation of requiring you
to accept the GPL, as so many Windows installers
from Sourceforge do, although you only need to
accept it for redistribution, not using them.
US Judges have already "defeated" software patents without needing to invoke the constitution. Apparently existing statute already excludes abstract ideas, mathematical algorithms and computer software.
It used to be that even inclusion of software as part of a patent application would mean it got rejected. When the Supreme Court opined, "a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program or digital computer," a lot of people took that as license to make software patents, even though the Court did not want to "allow a competent draftsman to evade the recognized limitations on the type of subject matter eligible for patent protection."
The full Diamond v. Diehr opinion is available various places on the web, but you may find my Diamond v. Diehr, Abridged more readable.
A promise is worth nothing in court.
If the 'Linux' that IBM is talking about is relying on any of their patented 'aparatus and system', they should just issue a license for Linux and other OSS to use it freely. That'd be recognized in court.
There is always the option to code around patents. But that gets difficult with the massive amount of patents plus the simple notion that there are only so many ways to skin-a-cat.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
When did IBM become the good guy???? Thanks IBM, I will buy your laptops from now on! ~n
I worked for a small company belonging to IBM.
We had a VP from IBM come and tell us they
"had no intention of shutting us down, we were a great asset",
two months later they shut us down.
IBM VPs will say whatever people want to hear at the time.
What they say and what they do are entirely disconnected.
Consider it a warning instead... they're thinking about it.
- AndrewN
Having the love and support of 500,000 volunteer Linux nerds is a good thing, but don't think for a minute that IBM wouldn't trade that in for cold hard cash if they were facing a very bad economic outlook.
If IBM really faces a downturn, they'll just have to turn to the open source way of getting cash to pay the bills... put a "Donate" button on their homepage.
This is why it is so incredibly easy to infringe on a software patent without actually knowing it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Edmund: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent war in Europe, two superblocs
developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the
Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two
vast opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way
there could never be a war.
Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?
Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.
George: What was that, sir?
Edmund: It was bollocks.
Baldrick: So the poor old ostrich died for nothing.
This software patent problem with Linux shows one strength of closed source over open source software.
Because open source software is open, any lawyer or firm can scan every open source project out there in search of violations without any complaint or restriction or even knowledge of the developers. The scan is likely to find some infrigments on software patents. While to search and scan through close source software would be much more difficult, likely requiring a court order with some peliminary evidence of violation before any scanning can occur.
My point is there are probably tons of patent violations in MS code, and other closed source programs, but that can't or won't be searched.
--exactly what you think and know, it's the kernel proper by a dictionary, and it also is the commonly used geek term for linux operating systems built around the kernel. It's both in modern parlance.
example with linux in a modern casual sense:
"hey man,nice screen there, whatcha running?" "moz on linux" "OK"
I'll repeat what I said, IBM is being coy and cute. The argument is, they need their patent portfolio for MAD in case someone else threatens them, etc. they then claim they sorta promise to nevah evah sue the linux kernel. they are being specific, I was pointing it that dude saying what he said still left a lot of "linux-dom" hanging out with it's pants around it's ankles. It's because of what he DIDN'T say that I assert this.
I call shenanigans, if the "weapon" of the software patent didn't exist in the first place, there would be no need for them-or any other large IT place- to accumulate their "arsenal portfolio" in their MAD scenario. But they are. It's because they dig on monopolies, either small ones or medium ones or large ones or all of the above. It's just reality, and that's what they are used to, and the opposite theory is still too new and scary to them to consider seriously yet. They *sort of* understand free and open source, but the full realities of it are not making it all the way to the ultimate decsiion they would have to make. Baby steps at it, sure, they are doing that, full adult strides, no, and we just heard from one of their honchos that this is as far as they will go now, an oral promise which means absolutely zero legally that they won't sue "the kernel".I call on them to REALLY put up or shutup on it.
IBM is a huge multibillion dollar corporation, has flocks of lawyers and lobbyists and oodles of cash. Yet, they are not doing the *true* right thing in embracing free and open source by lobbying via the traditional way of getting some congress people to sponsor a bill to outlaw software patents. They are play acting at full support. they are offering bare minimum support, and that's it. It's more than "no" support, but it is not "full" support, and I feel justified in pointing that out. I don't care how large a half way support is, it's still half-way.
I hope they alter and do the right thing, I am not thinking they are going to do it though.
At some time in the futre, given ALL of todays trends,not just picking out a few and basing your decsion on that, but looking at the total big picture, "linux" as the operating system built around the kernel will be 0wnz0rz by a few big corporations. There might be some attempts at forks, etc, but given the nature of patents and big business, make no mistake, they want to own it eventually, with whatever legal techniques make the most sense to them at the time and they won't give a care in squahsing small guys, they never have in the past and won't hesitate in the future.. meanwhile, they will take all the free stuff they can get, and yes, give back some, but not the important *some* which are the patents.
If I am wrong, swell! I got no probs being wrong, I hope I am in this case, especially on a future prediction. All you can do is look at past actions, add in current reality, then do the best job you can on extrapolation. I have a pretty fair long term multiple decade track record on futurisms, not perfect, but better than a coin toss on a lot of subjects, merely using that simple technique and being cool on gathering data points from all directions. Just normal modeling, nothing special, just my little gig I do. I don't code, I do this.
When IBM and other large international powerful IT corporations start openly and publically lobbying for elimination of software patents and freely give them up for all to use, I'll believe they support FOSS, until then, nope, I'll call shenanigans and advise people to watch them, and to be making seriouscontingency plans based around the realities of existing patents..
SCO is tip o
they'll say "they now have intentions". I'd be extremely careful with this shit. Either they give the community perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide license on technology covered by their patents or they can't be trusted.
Better the patent be in the hands of someone who doesn't intend to use it, rather than a shell company patent holder like SCO right?
:)
I mean, in a way IBM's stockpiling on patents protects Linux, as strange as it sounds. I for one welcome our big blue overlords
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Well that explains a lot. I had always been using the second definition. But now it makes a lot more sense.
Your organization isn't likely to be sued for patent infringement by IBM, particularly if your organization holds any patents. Your organization is more likely to be pressured into cross-licensing. Don't take my word for this, read it from IBM's own Assistant General Counsel, Roger Smith. In IBM's "Think" magazine Smith said that IBM gets "perhaps an order of magnitude" more value from their patents by cross-licensing than from lawsuits.
I take them seriously on this matter because they hold more patents than anyone or any other organization. I would not expect that IBM will refrain from suing Linux kernel developers if need be. There's no point in owning the patents if they pose no threat to compel the behavior of others.
Cross-licensing is also one of the key reasons why software patents fail to promote the innovation a limited monopoly ostensibly exists to provoke.
Digital Citizen
"All of which are based on programs which are going to be litigated out of existence within a very few , short years."
You cannot litigate open source software out of business....it is open...remember.
"Public defenders do not handle IP/Patent cases."
Then I would do it myself...because I have no money to fight such a stupid case.
what?
'nuff said!
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Prior art!? Bah! That's for the courts to figure out.
IBM has no "intentions" of suing the "linux nation" to protect its patents. Of course not - IBM is a corporation; it has no brain, no mind, no intentions. And there is no "linux nation", just a bunch of geeks at a convention, and millions of unorganize users around the world. What happens when IBM's execs "change their mind"? Where will this "Linux nation" appear to complain? On Slashdot?
Linux users might play in the shadow of IBM while it defends its patents from other corporations which might interfere with Linux. So long as IBM isn't pushing its own Linux brand at the expense of other distros, and growing the market cooperatively, we'll get along fine. When IBM buys a distro company, a la Novell/SuSE, or just brands its own, its self interest is just as likely to turn on everyone else, harvesting the "Linux nation" for a new market of its own.
IBM is a benignly neglectful feudal lord, aligned with its serfs in their common fight against the Microsoft empire, whose lands they're slowly colonizing. When the empire has contracted enough, watch for the knights, clutching their legal briefs, to kneel before the PTO popes and cardinal courts, uniting the believers in the orthdox church. And get ready for the tithe.
--
make install -not war
Linux and the FSF should just cross license with IBM and all the other players in the market who would be open to such a deal.
By getting a few key players, the rest may well just do the same, thus elminating a large swath of problems for the open source community.
In essence, what the open-source crowd trades, is the existance of their open source as compensation for the use of the patents. The best approach would be to ink deals with a company and the entire open source community at large. This way, linux would be ok, GNU software would be ok, and the fifty thousand other open source products that are lessor known would be safe from lawsuits from the list of named companies. The list of companies would be the us, in the us verses Microsoft battle.
.... he claims that IBM wouldn't use their patents against the kernel...
uhh, WHICH patents? What *exactly* does IBM claim to "own" that's in the kernel? Have they released the little details, or are they allowing the kernel developers to just go on their merry way and keep building a better kernel that at some time in the future they can pull a claim on?
big mess, combining copyright with patents. hey, why can't nvelists claim a patent on their unique novel they write? What's the diff? a novel is something written that's designed to invoke a feeling, it "does something", even if it's entertainment. So? A patent is a claim that you invented something new and unique and it has to do something. What's the difference?
That's why software patents are a business scam and an absurdity.
Anyway, what does IBM "own" in the kernel that everyone is supposed to not worry about? Shouldn't it be removed as quickly as possible if it exists?
When, oh when, will HURD be ready?
Yes, but at least they'd make an offer first. An acquisition offer. A big one.
IBM's pledge not to use its patent portfolio means nothing, even if they put it in writing. It is just a smokescreen to make them look like the good guys to the F/OSS community, meanwhile they continue to patent everything under the sun, taking full advantage of our horribly broken patent system.
If IBM really wanted to be a champion in this arena, they would step up to the plate and use their clout in Washington to have new legislation passed reforming the patent system. Until I see that, I have no faith in IBM leaving up to any "pledge" they may make.
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
IBM sells solutions. That means they market to /. types who care if the supplier is a "good guy" or "bad guy" of IT.
If IBM has this many possible patents against Linux, do they have enough to assert against SCO to stop their Unix business in its tracks?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You cannot litigate open source software out of business....it is open...remember.
Yes, you can. You can litigate/sue/supoena the makers and distributors of said software so that it is effectively driven underground.
No more ftp sites (no one wants to be a carrier), no more cdroms (no one wants to be sued for distributing) and forget about sf.net completely.
It is because of hubris such as that which you display that open source is unprepared for the legal assault that MS currently has planned.
I give open source three years, four at absolute tops.
...in the future, every developer will be stuck working for IBM global services and small startups will be obliterated by the IBM/OpenSource monolith...you've giving another monopoly all the free code it needs to dominate again (anyone remember IBMs ethics last time it was the dominant industry force?).
Well done open source....way to destroy an industry.
Lyons is another Forbes writer. So long as Forbes has no editorial standards to have let him print what he has, I cannot take anything they write too seriously without independent confirmation. You know, like how journalists are /supposed/ to get at least two sources, so they (hopefully) report facts instead of rumors.
/and/ make money.
/just/ out of the goodness of their heart, but is that so bad? Mutual benefit is a good thing in a partenership, and we benefit from all the stuff they GPL, all the code they write and donate, not to mention their corporate protection of Linux against vexatious litigants like SCO (or worse, Microsoft), simply because they need to defend Linux to make money off it. It's symbiotic, and that's why I expect this to last... at least for the time being.
Sun is schizophrenic--on one hand, Linux threatens them, on the other, there are places they can make money off of it. They have a special cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, the very one who is testing the waters with full-force patent litigation against Linux to crush their only real competition. Thus, Sun wants to sit on the fence and play both sides for now. Good for Sun, but I'm sure not going to support them for it.
IBM is already using their patents in the counterclaims against ilk like SCO. I take this to mean they only intend to use the patents as defense, if say, someone like RedHat sued them (this is just a hypothetical, but contract disputes to crop up, and patent counterclaims like they've used against SCO are powerful weapons to enforce compliance).
In any event, yes it would be nice to have this in writing, but in the mean time you don't just have to take their word for it. They way they've structured thier Linux business is to make it mutually advantageous. That is, so that it will benefit Linux and it will benefit them. There's no "if they get greedy" case here, because they are being "greedy" in a sense--but they've found what I think is a way to support Linux
Yes. Management changes & market changes can disrupt all of that. If and when that happens, I'm sure those in the 'Linux community' will stop supporting IBM. In the mean time, they're working to the benefit of both us and them, so I really think IBM deserves our support.
True, they're not doing it
I don't like this. It seems "nice" of IBM, but at the same time it avoids a challenge that Linux infringes on any of their patents at all. Perhaps that is a fight they'd rather not get into for image sake, plus perhaps they might think there is a chance they would lose.
I thought Linux was not patent encumbered? It was written from the ground freaking up by volunteers! If that infringes on patents, I say fuck the patents. Base Linux out of somewhere that there aren't patent laws.
Then IBM should put its money where its mouth is and place those patents into the public domain.
They DO distribute Linux. They just didn't DESIGN or MODIFY the distribution.
The Penguin Producer
You are probably right - they just want to avoid the bad press (i.e. SCO) right now. Especially with SCO, they do not want to be lumped into that group. Rest assured, that IBM did plenty of research before making their announcement. They figure their bottom dollar will suffer less (right now) by not sueing at this point. If this changes in the future, so will their "intentions."
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
Actually the contracts might be what is preventing MS from attacking Linux. If MS was to sue for patent infringement on Linux developers, then IBm could claim that MS was materially harming thier business and the contract between them is broken.
I actually think the thing with MS patenting everything is a backlash from the Eolas web browser patent and similiar things. They are trying to preempt any future lawsuits. They are probably just going to use thier patents for FUDS value for the next couple of years.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
As IBM distributes Linux to thier clients, they have to licence any applicable patents for use with the GPL.
It might be possible for IBM to say sue Postgresql, if IBM has never distributed Postgresql and Postgresql has not incorporated any code from any GPL project that IBM does distribute. I doubt any IBM lawyer will want to get involve in that, nor does IBM want to try to invalidate the GPL.
Even MS is going to have some problem suing F/OSS for patent violations as they have distributed GNU tools.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life