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. :)

Comments

odd wording

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

The road to hell...

[SunPin]

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.

Re:FUD?

[eggoeater]

IBM is just responding to OSRM's pure FUD campaign. OSRM is raising the issue to boost their "insurance" sales. IBM is the least of my concerns with all this. OSRM spouting bullshit in order to boost their business is what pisses me off becuase PHBs out their will start thinking "Gosh... this is a risk. Let's avoid it."

Re:Makes Sense

[Wudbaer]

Welcome to the real word. What IBM might say:

1. Contributed to the linux kernel

"When we contributed to feature A we didn't know someone implemented feature B violating our patent xyz thus damaging our vital business interests on the field of whatever.

2. Would look very silly and incongruent for going against something it uses to make money

There are more than enough examples of companies doing a 180 degree turn in their business strategy, IBM itself being a brilliant example.

I wonder if we should thank SCO...

[StressGuy]

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?

Now this is terribly nice and all

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Actually...

[StressGuy]

I think they are thinking about their bottom line. I believe IBM stands to benefit from Linux becoming more mainstream.

IBM to fight for Linux?

[cornice]

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.

ah yes, the statement of no intentions

[nanojath]

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.

Re:I don't understand...

[minus9]

Making exceptions to rules generally nullifies the power a rule has.

With patents (unlike trademarks) you can enforce them as selectively as you want without the patent becoming any less binding. If they wanted they could allow everyone in the world except me use everything they had patented.

Re:Disadvantage

[phoenix.bam!]

That would also give patent holders a target for lawsuits.

Re:Fud?

[Short Circuit]

It's still Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. But that doesn't make it untrue.

The company selling Linux indemnification insurance has a stake in corporations worrying about legal risks involved in using Linux.

The funny thing is, near as I can tell, Bruce Perens feels that Linux insurance will aid its adoption.

Re:I don't understand...

[Enigma_Man]

Which brings me around full circle to my main point... Software patents are being used for something other than what they were intended (companies amassing huge libraries of patents, for Mutual Assured Destruction, as you put it, or those less ethical companies that amass patents solely to lord over them, and take money from those who may tread over the boundaries). This forces us to examine the entire patent system. Is it right, fair, morally just to give a monopoly to something/someone for any amount of time, be it a hardware good, or a software program? Patents (from what I understand) originally used to be used in exactly the manner for which they were intended. It gave more benefit to R&D, because your efforts were rewarded with your short-term monopoly on the results of your R&D. It was sort of a "government sponsored" general R&D effort. But nowadays, less-ethical marketers and the suits have figured out that they can heap patent upon vague patent, and make money via the legal system, instead of through actual R&D. In the meantime, the people trying to do it the old way (reward through innovation) are getting trod upon.

-Jesse

Prens Shouldn't Bit The Hand Feeding Him

[ausoleil]

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.

Re:Disadvantage

[Short Circuit]

It's a double-edged sword, sure. But I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

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?

The concept of a class-action suit doesn't work in this case, because Linux developers aren't financially harmed by such things. (I've never heard of a class-action libel or slander suit. Is there a lawyer in the house who could describe if that's possible?)

What patents should be used for IMHO

[gilesjuk]

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.

Re:I agree with Perens

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

But who would IBM send the letter to? It's not like there's a "Linux Inc." entity that deals with matters concerning Linux, including litigation.

How about Red Hat, Novell, SCO (!), Richard Stallman (FSF)... Of course, BSD is dying, no point in bothering with those folks...

Lawyers

[mslinux]

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.

Re:Already protected by the GPL?

[wiresquire]

IBM doesn't distribute Linux. That's why they use SuSE (or Red Hat).

Have you ever wondered why they -and all the other large,established IT vendors- don't?

You can bet their lawyers are telling them it's for this exact reason.The patents issue.

And in case you're wondering. No, I'm not an MS troll.

It's not FUD, there's a clear and present danger..

[d_jedi]

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.

Re:I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercially IBM doesn't have anything to fear from Linux

Untrue. IBM is mainly using "Linux" as a saleshook for their $$$ middleware like DB2 and WebSphere. Yet at the same time the "Linux community" is beefing up open source clones of these applciations. Eventually IBM will be forced to treat JBoss and PostgreSQL as competitors in every respect.

Re:In writing? Here you go

[JWW]

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).

Re:Read -all- of the statement

[GrodinTierce]

That emphasis is definitely important. I should note that I was there yesterday; he got cut off by applause after the first part and then, it seemed to me, really tried to skip past the second half.

Re:I don't understand...

[njcoder]

"IBM, and most other huge engineering companies, have enormous patent portfolios (not just software patents) that they mostly carry for defensive purposes"

I'm trying to find a polite way to say "What are you on Crack!?!?!" but I'm coming up short. If IBM didn't invent they offensive use of software patents, they sure as hell perfected it.

My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infringement. Threatening a massive lawsuit, IBM demanded a meeting to present its claims. Fourteen IBM lawyers and their assistants, all clad in the requisite dark blue suits, crowded into the largest conference room Sun had.

The chief blue suit orchestrated the presentation of the seven patents IBM claimed were infringed, the most prominent of which was IBM's notorious "fat lines" patent: To turn a thin line on a computer screen into a broad line, you go up and down an equal distance from the ends of the thin line and then connect the four points. You probably learned this technique for turning a line into a rectangle in seventh-grade geometry, and, doubtless, you believe it was devised by Euclid or some such 3,000-year-old thinker. Not according to the examiners of the USPTO, who awarded IBM a patent on the process.

After IBM's presentation, our turn came. As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

After a modest bit of negotiation, Sun cut IBM a check, and the blue suits went to the next company on their hit list.

From A forbes article by Gary Reback

Re:In writing? Here you go

[AstroDrabb]

IBM will have to step up to the plate to defend Linux if Microsoft goes on the patent attack.

I wouldn't depend on that, though I too hope it to be the case. The thing is, is that "we" do not know of all the agreements between MS and IBM. They could and probably do have patent deals for X number of years. Basically they agree to share patents and or not sue each other. Similar to what Sun just did with MS. So it could be the case that IBM cannot use their patents to help Linux against MS patent attacks. Though I hope that IBM will be able to do that. If IBM is not in a position to "protect" Linux from patents with patents, then you will see tons of GNU/Linux development moving to other nations. One problem with that is that the majority of the top 20 kernel developers are USA based. I don't see them moving out of the USA.

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.