Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Has 'No Intention' of Using Patents Against Linux

Posted by michael on from the cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die dept.

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. :)

25 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. I don't understand... by Enigma_Man · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:I don't understand... by Durzel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Commercially IBM doesn't have anything to fear from Linux, and in fact its current business model would suggest it has everything to gain from ensuring that it is looked upon favourably by pro-Linux parties.

      The only real difference in this case is that IBM is using its software patents as a means to paint itself as "the good guys" (take note SCO), which is every bit as commercially viable as the more traditional litigious application of software patents.

    2. Re:I don't understand... by Otter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      IBM, and most other huge engineering companies, have enormous patent portfolios (not just software patents) that they mostly carry for defensive purposes. This works since they're basically all probably infringing on each other, and the patents serve as a sort of Mutual Assured Destruction.

      That's why the real headaches come from patent suits from companies with no substantive business of their own to lose.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
    3. Re:I don't understand... by danheskett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      which is every bit as commercially viable as the more traditional litigious application of software pat
      That's a completly moronic 1990's style notion.

      While things are good, having the goodwill of the "linux community" might be all good and great.

      What about next time IBM is rasping for cash revenues? It's easy to make rosy promises when times are good. It's hard to follow them when roses turn to crap.

      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.

    4. Re:I don't understand... by MartinG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is no positive good in software patents. The only use they have is in killing off competition and maintaining a monopoly.

      Real innovation in software is not in ideas or "inventions" (which are easy) but in implementations. (which is of course covered by copyright law already and works well when enforced)

      Hopefully if the lawmakers see people like IBM doing things like this and in the end realise the system is broken and eventually do something about it.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    5. Re:I don't understand... by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Hopefully if the lawmakers see people like IBM doing things like this and in the end realise the system is broken and eventually do something about it."

      Indulge me for a second, but aren't those lawmakers generally lawyers? Would lawyers stand to lose out or gain from a lot of loosely specified laws that require testing in court?

      Interesting concept, no?

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    6. Re:I don't understand... by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you've got it backwards: patent is a bad fit; code should be copyrightable only. Copyright covers the implementation, not the algorithm, which means that plagarism is disallowed, but implementing the same idea with your own code is allowed.

      The idea of treating the code as an "object that works" breaks down when you consider that code is mathematics, that it has to perform certain functions, and it has to interoperate.

      patenting a software algorithm is like patenting "the process of traveling from point A to point B" - it would be absurd to patent that instead of a method to do so, in the same way that it would be absurd to, say, patent "a method of decoding LZW-compressed data", because if it is patented, then people can't use LZW compressed data in the same way they can't get from point A to point B -- it cripples interoperability. In this case, copyrighting an software implementation of an idea (such as LZW) is analogous to patenting a hardware method (i.e. implementation) of transportation (such as a car).

      You can't patent a mathematical idea (e.g. the LZW algorithm) any more than you can patent the idea of traveling.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. Read -all- of the statement by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Read -all- of the statement by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unless, perhaps thay needed to defend themselves against someone else? Hmm, who might that be?

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  3. I agree with Perens by trybywrench · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  4. Makes Sense by wackysootroom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Yeah, guys in marketing never lie. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    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.

  6. A promise? by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Having it writing? by molarmass192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So if they do drag you into court over it, you can nail 'em over the head with their written statement. Words hold surprisingly little power, especially something intentionally open ended like "no intention". I may have "no intention" of suing you, but that doesn't mean I can't wake up tomorrow and decide to drag your ass into court as I'm downing my first cup of coffee. However, if I gave you a written statement saying that I wouldn't, I have basically no chance of getting that written statement thrown out.

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  8. As good as a handshake? by Telex4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ;-)

  9. Already protected by the GPL? by The+Wicked+Priest · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  10. Formally enacting the terms of the Linux GPL by NZheretic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Disadvantage by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:Disadvantage by AmaDaden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Remember Microsoft's hypocritical FUD about "Who's liable for Linux?" How about the situations where the community can't sue for slander or libel? Or other situations where the community can't make it's voice heard in the legal system?

      It does not matter if Linux gets slandered. The tech people out there who make the decisions and or suggestions know what's FUD and what's not. Linux is used more and more not because IBM or other company is saying how good it is but because tech people hear about it from other tech people and then they try it out and find that it has advantages over other things they could be using. And any PHB that believes all that FUD and has the power to make the choice on what OS is used will either change his tune in the future when more and more people use Linux or get fired because he clearly does not know how to trust the people who know tech.

    2. Re:Disadvantage by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      PHB's are also in control of the hiring process. They may just as well fire the Linux afficionado and hire an MSCE.

      --
      tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  12. Just saying it doesn't cut it... by rben · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  13. Re:In writing? Here you go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, we need it in writing ... Unisys said the same thing (in writing) about GIFs and backtracked.

    CEO's change etc. Make up of companies change. Even a written statement could easily be "reinterpreted" etc. by highly paid lawyers.

    But still .. having it in legal writing is better than nothing. And right now we have nothing.

  14. Re:I'm shocked by LordKaT · · Score: 5, Insightful
    While other posters have pointed out that this is about IBMs bottom line, I would like to point out that this is about IBMs bottom line for the long term. IBM could easily crush Linux in endless court battles, and "win" the rights to Linux, and gain - in the short term - whatever money they can gain; however, by pledging not to patent-slap Linux, they're also making an investment in their bottom line: Linux can continue to grow and mature, therefore, IBMs business can also grow.

    Don't ever fool yourself: a business is ALWAYS about the bottom line. IBM just happens to plan beyond the next Quarterly report.

  15. Re:In writing? Here you go by AviLazar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  16. kernel by zogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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