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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.