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. :)
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.
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.
That would also give patent holders a target for lawsuits.
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
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
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