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

In writing? Here you go

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM has no intentions of using patents against Linux.

I don't understand...

[Enigma_Man]

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

Re:I don't understand...

[Durzel]

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.

Re:I don't understand...

[Otter]

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.

Re:I don't understand...

[MartinG]

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.

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

Re:I don't understand...

[stevesliva]

Mutual Assured Destruction

More like Mutually assured licensing. IBM: Hey Intel, you're using our transmogrifier! Intel: But you're using our bandersnatch! All together: Let's cross-license!

Lawyers: Phew. That'll be $167,456.

Re:I don't understand...

[darkmeridian]

If IBM later reneged and sought to enforce these patents, I would argue promissory estoppel. If you make a promise not to pursue a legal claim, and people take harmful reliance on it, then you are barred from later bringing these claims.

Read -all- of the statement

[pedestrian crossing]

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...

Re:Read -all- of the statement

[Oddly_Drac]

"unless of course we are forced to defend ourselves"

Is that 'defend' in terms of responding to attack, or defend as in 'bombing the shit out of Iraq'?

the Linux nation

[Anonymous Coward]

where is it, i wanna move there, geographically speaking

I agree with Perens

[trybywrench]

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.

Makes Sense

[wackysootroom]

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.

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.

A promise?

[Manip]

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.

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.

As good as a handshake?

[Telex4]

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 ;-)

Formally enacting the terms of the Linux GPL

[NZheretic]

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.

Re:Disadvantage

[phoenix.bam!]

That would also give patent holders a target for lawsuits.

Re:In writing? Here you go

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm shocked

[LordKaT]

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.

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:In writing? Here you go

[AviLazar]

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

Love that phrase "no intention"

[ewg]

You've got to love that phrase "no intention".

Hearing makes me want to reply

• I have "no intention" of striking you in the solar plexus
• I have "no intention" of keying your auotmobile
• I have "no intention" of dishonoring your sister

I understand why it's used: the person talking cannot speak authoritatively for the organization.

Still annoying, though.