Slashdot Mirror
IBM Opens Their Patent Portfolio to Open Source
kfiller writes "IBM announced that over 500 of their currently held software patents will be freely available to use for those who are working on open source projects (NY Times, free registration required), with the hope that more companies will do the same. More information is available at SourceLicense."
IBM Opens Their Patent Portfolio to Open Source That does it. I'm buying a crapload of IBM stock. One good decision after another... but somehow I feel strange in doing so. How many of you remember when IBM were the bad guys?
If you're afraid of registering at NYTimes.com, you can look at any of several other sites that have picked up the story.
Wow - this is the first story that has made me get a subscription to New York Times.
Good stuff, IBM!! *
* Google - please retract this post from the archives in 12 years when IBM turns into the new evil corporation again
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you
If you are just going to give it away, why even bother with the whole process of patenting something?
In linux libertas
My only question is, is the license revokable?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Lets do the same with hollywood :-)
Where's my free iPod!? Until then, I'll settle for a kiss...
Oh wait! They don't need to because open source programmers are already using them, have been for decades, and don't really give a shit at this point.
This is an agreement, a policy, a promise, anything you want to call it.
But it is not a contract.
Now... if only Microsoft could do that (yeah, right).
Of course... SCO will find some way to say its illegal or immoral or unconstitutional or something.
Isn't that usually how it goes?
However many candies you give out for free...
IBM must have some tanj smart people in their upper eschelons to be willing to do something like this!
...information wants to be free!
IBM
You BM
We All BM
For IBM!!!
Now all we need is some other companies to come to their senses and join in.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Best of luck and don't let anybody say they didn't try.
Is there a nomenclature of these 500 patents posted somewhere?
Considering that the patent office doesn't search for prior art any more, this at least gives you ammo to legally challenge when somebody else patents it too.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
IBM's tactic: Apply for U.S. patents on methods used in software and then license them royalty-free for use in free software.
IBM's possible strategies behind the tactic:
This is great. I think IBM should be commended for this (assuming it's for a legit purpose).
This could be a huge "cold-war" style arms/IP race. These days when people vote with their wallets, it's nice to see that viable candidates are emerging...
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
IBM has the offical release up and it has a PDF of the patents:
? Me nuChoice=pressreleases&TemplateName=ShowPressRelea seTemplate&SelectString=t1.docunid=7473&TableName= DataheadApplicationClass&SESSIONKEY=any&WindowTitl e=Press+Release&STATUS=publish
http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletForm.wss
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
really makes me excited to work for such an inovative company, sure do hope that I can get the job!
/* No Comment */
Next thing you know they'll be drinking vodka and calling each other "comrade."
/ In Soviet Russia, the software open sources YOU.
Maybe this is all really a covert attempt to patent the process of giving away patented software algorithms.
I remember they were a little mystified when Bruce Perens took them to task for their patent portfolio at just the time they were basking in the glow of being open source's hero vs. SCO.
I am both pleased and amazed that they acted to shore up that weak link to the community.
Ever onward!
Kill, Tux, kill!
It won't be long before the Communist steam roller is rolling along quickly across the information superhighway!
If Microsoft did this or open up their sources it could set FOSS back years. Thank you MS for being selfish.
"brxref
So next the Rational Tools or DB2? ... A company transforming from product oriented to service oriented. Woo Hoo!! and Yippee!!
Maybe, WebSphere MVS, CICS?
Where will it all end?
IBM building a future - well done.
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
Pardon me while I open this small box with Pandora's name written across the top... IBM is a corporate entity. Corporate entities should be referred to as "it", not they. The title of this fine piece should be:
IBM Opens Its Patent Portfolio to Open Source
Thank you for listening to my rant.
Personally I think they have the idea that software patents are going the way of the dodo and this is the easiest and best way of cashing in on what they have - and they have my vote in the race for smartest global corporation this mellenium.
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
Oh great! I cant wait to get hold of the source code to DB2 and Websphere!
They are open sourcing them arent they? After all, they are the champions of open source software are they not?
here
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
this wouldn't be news.
Or necessary.
Go Blue.
well. the title shoud be : "IBM give out 1.25% of all its patents to open source".
And now the looks like the Messiah of Open Source
Maybe they are...
The release includes detail on licensing.
Goodwill from a lot of developers can help the company in intangible ways, improving the bottom line and thus the stock.
Perahps the greater exposure of the patents will lead to more commercial adoption of some, also bringing in more money.
It's not "Giving away the IP library" as far as Wall Street is concerned because everyone knows you can't charge money for open source software! How could it compete against closed source stuff?
The reality we can keep between ourselves (though the final reality is that Wall Street will not even notice, I'm afraid).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The use of "they" not "it" is reasonable.
Of course if you think that "your" is the same as "you're" then all bets are off ;)
Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
and didn't get it
IBM to give free access to 500 patents
CNet
And others
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Is this not like, you first hit is free???
First, look for interesting ones here...
Then go to google and search for "patent XXXXXXX" where XXXXXXX is the patent #.
Looks like most are pretty old/obvious. Newest one released is from 2002. Find the most interesting ones (or most obvious, for that matter) and post it here!
we can start using bzip again?
Yeow... Some of these patents may of been tripped over by alot of companies. IBM may of just patented the Cable/DSL modem, some types of PCI/DMA chipsets, computer multitasking, the file system, web browser interfaces and operations... Damn. Where's IBM's lawyers and why haven't they sued Microsoft's pants off yet?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
They were never the bad guys when the hired all of my relative in Vt who worked there for years and made all kinds of money.
Sure they have done some f-d things, but so has every corporation. After all a corporation is run by people and people can be currupt.
My father bought their stock 7 or 8 years ago, and it tripled. everyone told him not to buy it.
They made some stupid mistakes.
Also, Mr. Watson was supposedly a very nice man who believed in his people. IBM never had a layoff until recently.
This is cool, but I doubt IBM is thinking they're giving away the store here...
Granted, those 2000+ patents aren't all (or even necessarily predominantly) for software, but given the # of years they've been researching at that level their portfolio must be ree-diculously large at this point..
And there will be no way in heck to escape its control. Let's say 5 years down the road bigwigs decide that whatever-comes-next is a big thing. They can tell whoever is using _their_ patents to cease and desist doing so. Same thing, I'm sure, will happen if an OSS project is threatening their market position is some market segment.
Father-in-law: You can't just give away your work! That doesn't make any sense!
Me: Maybe not to you, but IBM likes the idea so much that they're even letting us use their patents for free.
FIL: IBM? Really? Huh - they're not exactly a pack of hippies, are they?
One of the most conservative companies in the USA has publically and loudly proclaimed that sharing IP with your friends, neighbors, and even competitors is a good thing for profits (as long as you do it on level terms). Every time I hear some proprietary advocate spouting about how you can't make money by giving things away, I'm going to respond with "IBM says you're wrong" until they shut up or go away.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Kudos to IBM. This is a great move.
The biggest benefit I see for this is that by opening their portfolio, the innovations they spearheaded are built upon by an army of thousands. Now that IBM are turning into a service company (which is evidenced by their sale of the PC division - they will concentrate on selling service with their big iron (good move IMHO)), the innovations they have already invested in will continue to reap them rewards because their "style" of computing is already compatible with whatever the FOSS community will bring to the table. Cool innovations for FOSS and rewards for IBM. Win-Win situation!
"And then I visited Wikipedia
Did Ben Franklin give away a competitive edge when he gave away the idea for the lightening rod and saved millions of lives?
I guess I'm going to have to stop telling people that IBM actually stands for I've Been Mugged.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
By first reading it is better than irrevocable. It is revocable only in the case that you take action against a free software project. Free software developers would seem to be able to use these 500 patents as a form of patent defence by saying: "Sue us and leave yourself liable to being stomped by IBM." Unfortunately you will have to convince IBM to litigate in your defence.
FYI - i saw on Reuters.com the other day...
NYTimes is consicering requiring a pay subscription to access their web articles.
That means we cant post the contents of the article, and we can't access it without paying. I, for one, hope they don't go through with it.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
If you want to read the NY Times without registering, try BugMeNot. Free browser plugin (FF and IE) that lets you log into registration-based-sites without doing all that privacy-invading registration business.
This is perfectly reasonable for IBM. In fact, patents require disclosure of the protected invention, if only to prevent unintentional infringement. If software is patented, its searchable nature offers much cheaper avoidance of serendipity, and much easier shopping for potential licensees. Copyright is still the more appropriate protection, with all those same compelling open-source characteristics. But as long as they are playing the patent game, at least IBM is playing fair - with those few patents they're now opening.
--
make install -not war
This is just one major salvo across the bow of Battleship Microsoft from Battleship IBM. This war that been has quietly raging for many years is far from being won. The sinking of the IE ship is well under way at this time, and the Admirals and Generals on both sides are in their respective war rooms. So what's next?
Heard any good sigs lately?
did you not know what the phrase meant?
Oh, and by the way the word corporate comes from the word cooperation. And so, sense there must be more than one to have cooperation, it is appropriate to use they when talking about a corporation.
Also, IBM is made up a living, breathing employees and board members. They are not an it.
I, for one, would love to see all of the grammer nazi's cease from their pendanty unless there is a real chance of misunderstanding what the words mean. And if there is a misunderstanding then please ask for clarity and not just act like a now-it-all.
There is a place for pedantic attention to grammer, like in formal contracts or when writing laws. Otherwise anyone who demands perfect grammer from others seems like an elitist.
Just my point of view.
Please read Ludwig Wittgenstein about the use of language.
Couldn't this be a movement aimed to deter anti software patents activist in Europe? Many if not most of these activist are free software advocates too.
Am I the only one who thinks their master plan involves ppc based desktops & laptops running linux. So they can stick it to both Microsoft and Intel.
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Is this something IBM has done of its own accord, or is there an organisation out there (eg. OSDL) driving this? Consequently, is IBM the only company to do this, or are they the first cab off the rank with other companies to follow quickly?
Anyone have some answers?
This is a profound move in so many ways.
A company actually using their patents "To promote the progress of science and useful arts"
and not to mention at the same time hastening the demise of a corrupt mega corporation.
Its obvious IBM has their own survival in mind but doesnt this sound to good to be true?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt. --E.C. Stanton
According to their press release, they're releasing source code to 500 patented processes. Sure, that's good, they may have a cookie.
But further on in their press release, we see why. In 2004 IBM were granted 3,248 patents, 1,314 more patents than any other company. 2004 was the fourth year in a row they've been granted 3000+ patents. So in the last four years, they've been granted more than TWELVE THOUSAND patents. They have also received more patents than any other company for twelve consecutive years.
Given that IBM has been around since the 1940s, it's not unreasonable to suppose that they're in possession of up to 30,000-40,000 patents. Kinda puts that 500 in perspective.
If you make proprietary products they will charge you.
evil is as evil does
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It's not April 1, is it? I could have sworn it was in the second week of January.
The way the licence is worded (as I understand it anyway) they help protect IBM and other Open Source software. If you use "Open Source software A" with one of IBMs patents in it and decide to leverage your own patents against "Open source software B" then IBM can make life difficult for you by revoking your right to use the patent in software A.
I guess it's a sort of "mutually assured destruction" which should stop discourage people from firing their lawyers off willy nilly.
The only thing I can think of is that strictly speaking such a revocable patent licence of any sort might make it unuseable under the current GPL.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
This is clearly a message to MS who has been patenting *rediculous* stuff as of late, which there is wide speculation that MS will then sue key Linux software makers to cripple the OS.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
So IBM is now the hero of the open source community because of 500 patents? Read the press release. IBM was awarded 3248 patents in the last year. IBM earned more U.S. patents than any other company for the twelfth consecutive year.
If patents are such a bad things, and IBM is the leader in obtaining patents, I wouldn't be so quick to applaud them.
This is mostly an American vs British distinction in my experience: Americans tend to call corporations "it" while Brits tend to call them "they". Growing up in American I tend toward the former but now that you mention it, the latter fits my philosophy a bit better.
Corporations are non-entities: they do not exist as natural things, but are government licences granted to groups of individuals. I find that this is one of the biggest failings of our capitalist economy or any so-called free market, and that without such a construct, capitalism would function much more fairly and efficiently.
I think I'll start calling corporations "they" now...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Whatever the intent of the patent system, right now its main use is for threatening other companies into cross-licensing agreements. Which is where Open Source comes a cropper, because it's not a legal entity that can enter into such agreements, and has no patents to cross-license.
But IBM's pledge works around that, by providing some patents for OSS to work with, and showing how to 'cross-licence' even without an OSS legal entity.
In fact, it might be the start of a 'viral' subversion of the patent system, in just the way that the GPL is for copyright. Imagine a time in a few years, where a lot of companies have done the same thing that IBM does. Each of those companies is then committed to the OSS patent pool, and can't threaten any OSS with a lawsuit on any particular patent without losing access to all the rest. And of course, the more companies that join in, the more patents are in the pool, and the more attractive it becomes.
What's important now is how other companies react to this now. If a few more come on board, this could be the Start Of Something Big!
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why does it always have to be about "what will Wall Street think". Or is that why you are using open source software?
It was a kind gesture on IBM's part and I am impressed by their leadership.
On one hand, Slashdot tells me that software patents are 100% Evil(TM). On the other hand, IBM has apparently opened some of its patents (but only for use in Open Source Software) and Slashdot now tells me that IBM is Not Evil Anymore(TM). How can you hold software patents, which are 100% Evil(TM), and at the same time be Not Evil Anymore(TM)? Please tell me what to think.
:)
You know I'm right. At least this post can't be modded down
If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
Lots of juicy patents. Funny, it reminds me of a list of freshmeat projects...
d pa tents.pdf
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledge
IANAL, but I believe the answer is no, because of the legal doctrine of Equitable Estoppel. http://www.legal-definitions.com/equitable-estoppe l.htm
My rights don't need management.
The parent post is 100% incorrect.
500 patents must be like 0.1% of IBM's patent holdings. This sounds like a PR move more than anything.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
I suppose the patents could be used on an open source os like darwin/os X?
1984 just comes 20 years late! Wait! Apple is using PowerPC?!? We are DOOMED! Seriously, IBM has disguised itself nicely in the past couple years as friends of open source: adapting Linux, push Sun to open Java, and Eclipse. IBM has changed its image from the Evil Big Brother to the Benevolent Giant. However, deep down inside, IBM is still the evil big brother in disguise. I am interested to see the reaction from Open Source Communities, a lot of which are against software patent all together. I suspect most would likely to hail this decision rather then speak against it since IBM is such a friend of open source. However, in long term, the projects using IBM's patents are going to effectively become IBM's weapon against its commercial competitors as IBM would be the only one qualified to including these projects in its commercial offering. Software patent is bad, bad, bad!!!
1) Patents expire. Most of those patents that IBM filed long ago are dead.
2) Most of IBM's patents are not software patents. IBM usually patents things like new kinds of electron microscopes, new semiconductor technologies, and other "hard" patents.
It's not anti-free market at all. Patents distort a free market by creating artificial barriers to entry.
Nor are the motives "socialist" or necessarily "magnanimous". IBM's contributions to Linux could hardly be called that because they make them serious money. The revocation clause also buys something serious for IBM. As long as you use Open Source software that employs these IBM patents then you can't sue another Open Source project that IBM may rely on (or created themselves) for using your own patents without risking IBM pulling the rug out from under you.
Releasing these patents (if they are used) buys IBM an additional degree of legal protection/ammunition for the future.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Wht is your point? That I think to fast, that I type too fast?
I am not getting paid to do this.
This is a blog, and a typo is just to be expected.
Sorry I am not perfect.
If you really don't know what I was saying in my post then I think you need to go back to school.
There are many smart people who can't type or write. i have seen software that was brillient in what it did, but the idiom was old-school.
Would you throw it all out because you don't like the idiom?
It is like people who put down folks who speak in the dialect of Ebonics. They don't care what the person is saying, they just hate black people.
Modern English grammer is a perscription that was created by the English elites so that they could keep their subjects down.
You ain't got a clue dude.
I haven't looked at the list of patents they're turning over, but my best guess is that they're on technologies that still have potential, but IBM's basically given up trying to profit from. I'm kind of hoping / thinking it's their voice recognition stuff (ViaVoice). It's probably stuff that could really go places, but IBM doesn't feel like committing the resources to get there. Turning the IP over to Open Source developers allows third parties to apply this tech in interesting ways and then IBM can come along and roll it up into their own suite of product offerings.
Eventually, I would not be surprised if they turned Websphere over to Open Source.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
If open source software X uses pledged patent IBM patent Y. And if company Z uses the X, and then company Z becomes something like SCO is today against OSS then IBM can sue them over patent Y since their lisence was revoked because of their lawsuit agais OSS entities. Yes. Thats the trick, they are making this partially for against future SCO:s.
IANAL, but this looks obvious.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
We also have these..
What was the criteria for selection?
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
(or what that MS we love to hate?)
AC comments get piped to
i read the article, but since i am not sure what the patents are for i am not sure if these are actually usable patents
to put it simply.
lets say ibm has a patent for "4 wheeled personal flying transport unit with vtol capability" (in small words: a flying car). now if they opened this out, fine that means that anyone can make a flying car. but does it mean that any flying cars will get made??
or what if these are just basic ideas which are in common use, but are patented by ibm.. say for internet based retailing.
this could be just a load of hot air.
suchetha
"see that man.. he the devil.. never take your eye off the man"
learn from yesterday, plan for tomorrow, party tonight
or one out of three ain't bad
It's nice that IBM is doing this, but have you looked at the list of patent titles? I admit I only took a quick look but to me the list looks ... old and rather bound to IBM products. I'm guessing that IBM has found that, historically, some patents don't make them much money (maybe because nobody does same thing), so to squeeze value from them (in this case, good will) they are giving royalty free licenses to OSS. In that case, they are generating tremendous good will and giving away little or nothing to non-competitors. I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see why new and/or widely useful patents would be given away. This list doesn't reassure me, and I will wait and see the usefulness of these patents before singing the praises of IBM.
It sounds like the patents can ONLY be used by OSS projects, and not by closed-source. Most likely, this means that it will only end up in GPL projects, as a BSD-License can lead to some very shaky grey-area with this aspect of the source licensing.
Two Roommates and a Boyfriend, updates Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
This is absolutely amazing. From the corporation that brought us PC BIOS error codes (pay $$$ to find what they mean) comes a token patent licensing deal, and the sheep at Slashdot are cumming all over themselves over it. Holy cow, people, get some perspective!
What are the chances that Sun is paying attention?
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
I really hope IBM opens up the following patent (quoted from Forbes.com 06/24/02):
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.
For the past few years I've been fantasizing about writing a killer app video game where thin lines get fat. But I've always been afraid I'd be sued by IBM.
Maybe now my dreams can come true.
The grant/pledge of the named 500 patents is irrevocable.
[snip] the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software. [/snip]
...they'd get a Linux-compatible client for Lotus Notes out there. It's not tied to Windows or anything; I use the Mac version on OS X every day, and there's already a Linux server. Disgruntlement against Windows is real, and there are and will be governments and businesses migrating away from it, slowly but surely, as much as is possible.
There are office suites on Linux that do everything that most people need. But if your company uses Lotus Notes (or MS Exchange, though I think there is a Linux client for it, from Ximian), any move from Windows is likely to be towards the Macintosh. Of course, that's what IBM really wants; remember that they make the PowerPC 970 processors for all G5 Macs, and are evidently selling them to Apple more quickly than they can make them.
But beyond IBM's motives, 500 software patents available like this is a good thing, as long as the license is not such that IBM can decide one day that they want to thenceforth collect royalties.
Not that the two can't be the same, but just something to think about :-)
How on Earth is Microsoft going to continue to innovate? HORRORS!
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
While this is good for pure OS plays, for companies like MySQL this is dangerous. Imagine someone adding code that uses one of these patents to the OS version of MySQL. Instant fork - MySQL.com can't give this code non-OS to their customers, as they do currently. So only IBM can use these patents both in OS and non-OS code.
I guess on the whole this is not very different from the current situation, except that these patents just became much more of a tempting target for implementation by OS coders. And could be a point of friction between the companies developers and just another OS coder.
All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
This a very good strategy for IBM. They have a lot of good researchers coming up with ideas that will cost money to develop. Many of those can benefit the computing industry in general and help them in further development of core technologies. This is the easiest way for IBM to, in a sense, get free development. By opening up the patents, they don't have to spend money on implementation which will allow them free use of the technologies to futher their products with no real development cost. The open source community can implement and futher the technology covered by the patents allowing IBM to integrate that back into their core business to further the commercial products without the development cost.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Open Source won't earn them money, but will in turn give them the implementations without the expense of their own development team doing it. A community of free development that can implement technology that their researchers create, who could ask for more?
root 10956 5164 0 Oct 22 - 0:23 sendmail: rejecting connections: load average: 70 (isn't sendmail just too kind)
PS - The legal concept behind this is "Promisory Estoppel". In other words, if they have promised that it is irrevocable (which they have done), they cannot change their minds in the future and start suing people for it. For the same reason that if you put a sign on your door saying "All Welcome" you can't shoot/sue (sorry - dunno what the standard is in the USofA) someone for trespassing.
What would be really cool is if IBM reworked its cross licensing agreements it has with big companies like Microsoft to say that they can only use IBM's patents if they extend their cross license to allow open source products to be used.
MS is still a relative newcomer to patents, but IBM is an old pro. As there are surely hundreds or thousands of patents IBM owns that are used by Windows, Office, etc. and probably only dozens that IBM software would make use of, IBM has the strong hand and could do this.
Think of how Linux's growth could be helped over the next few years if the overhang of MS lawsuits was removed, and their ability to embrace and extend using patents was curtailed? Maybe I'm dreaming, but its a good dream!
If so, AWESOME! So much for MSFT on web servers... On the other hand, if not, that kinda sucks.
IBM is "giving" away their work for more software. If nobody uses their work, they've given away nothing, if someone does use their work, they just got more software that will work on their hardware WITHOUT having to pay to develop it. The NUMBER ONE thing you need to sell hardware? Software that will run on it. IBM is trading patents for real software.
But even in the general OSS sense, "giving away" your work doesn't mean you're doing it for free. If you're creating software solely to sell that software, then yeah, it doesn't make any sense. But if the only reason you have software is to accomplish some other task, giving away your software basically takes a lot of the expense of maintaining that software and move it to the community.
For example, we use some open source software at my job, and I also use a lot of it for other things personally. Although it's rare (as I'm not a huge software guy), I will make improvements to software, and submit them back to the community. Why would I give away my improvements for free? Because it is a lot more valuable for me to get my improvements included in the updates to the software (and thus keep my software freely maintained) instead of having to redo my fixes everytime there's a software upgrade than it is for me to try and sell those same fixes. (Whatever someone might pay for them is much less than the costs of me trying to market, sell, and collect the money for them).
On the same token, if I make a basic software package to perform some task, I can then release it to the community, where someone else will likely improve it. I can then have the benefits of those improvements without having to pay to have them made in-house.
Remember, software itself doesn't really have any value (except entertainment) - software is valuable because it allows you to do something else more efficiently. Releasing your software allows you to get better software later without having to invest your own capital in development.
paintball
Of course it is possible that the move is a pure PR stunt, and the patents are worthless anyway. But I'm not that cynical.
A friend of mine hacks Linux for IBM and the impression I get is that it is very popular. He's always being sent somewhere or other to install or configure some absurdly large sounding box or other.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
The programming industry is the largest service industry pretending to be a manufacturing industry.
IBM makes it's money from hardware, consulting and services. What is better business idea than supporting and developing free software and then selling support and consulting. If your customers don't buy software they can spend that money to service and hw! Smart!
Dyslexics have more fnu.
Long term imo there is nothing so important in business as your good name,IBM is certainly doing their good name lots of good. Well done big blue.
You missed the most creative part of this whole initiative. If you are worried about IBM incorporating the (BSD licensed? not GPL) code in their commercial offering, then just persuade the developers to use your software patents too. That may, in some cases, become a necessary defensive move. I think this is going to be huge.
Imagine this scenario:
- party A releases Free Software program implementing some technique.
- party B patents the technique.
- party B releases the patent for free use in Free Software.
- party C challenges the patent claim, indicating A as author of prior art.
- A would definitely better like B to hold the patent in current state than C to have it challenged (A's program gets protected under the patent rights that way)
Can C succeed in challenging the patent claim?
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
A few months ago I was working on a project that required the use of a particular data compression method (arithmetic coding), because of its great efficiency on the type of data I was supposed to process (uncompressed output from various audio codecs, including experimental ones). IBM owns no less than 19 patents on that algorithm and its derivatives. Sure, the first 3 of them are expired by now, but none of the others were in the 500 list.
Data compression is one of the areas where pure software patents are commonplace and very annoying, which makes your choices very narrow when it comes to choosing a compression method for your projects. Check it out here.
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
I.B.M. to Give Free Access to 500 Patents
It's about result. End result, old lady still helped. We're talking about global affect, not moral scaling.
If we suddenly discovered life on another planet and we all stopped warring on each other in order to look good for them... bad or good.
Intentions irrelevant, so long as one doesn't start warring again or doing something equally underhanded it's a net good result. Now if somebody stopped the war just to plot a secret coup when the enemy is unsuspecting... final result bad.
The point is... IBM is still being helpful, and the old lady still got across the street. If they in the future turn around and use this in a bad way, it's a different story, but the net result is good without harm done to anyone else.
I'd suggest that all you negetive people STFU whenever somebody does something good. It doesn't mean you have to accept group X as a bunch of saints, just accept that they've done a good thing.
IBM is just playing games, they are lobbying heavily in favour of software patents in Europe. See e.g. this reaction from the nosoftwarepatents.com campaign.
Donate free food here
Now THIS is the interesting bit. Not the fact that open source can use the techniques defined in 500 patents, but that anyone who takes patent-action against open source will not be allowed to use what's in the patents (if IBM says so)! At least, that's how I read this. It would have been better if open source developers themselves could say this, but, let's be fair, open source can never afford the lawyers needed to uphold such a statement.
So if sometime in the future an SCO turns around and sues IBM over an open-source software product that it sells IBM can terminate the SCO's rights to use thier patents immediately and thus eliminate the SCO's software business.
Wow! That legalese from IBM was much clearer and simpler to understand than the GPL legalese. I am impressed!
Kim0
There's a lot of hardware patents dealing with pretty basic processor and system stuff such as:
- Pipelined two-cycle branch target address cache
- High performance multichannel DMA controller for a PCI host bridge with a
built-in cache
On the software side, are OS/2 patents much use:- Quick loading of run time dynamic link library for OS/2
There are many useful things in there but they're all pretty basic and I would have thought hard to defend - these are US patents and I've been told many times by US patent attorneys that getting a patent is easy, defending it in court can be very hard and many if not most are overturned on appeal.Seems to me that IBM has had a bit of a clear out of its patent closet and decided to make all the old, lame and stale patents that are past their sell-by-date available to the FOSS community instead of putting them in the bin. I suspect that even for proprietary s/ware IBM would not challenge the use of any of these patents.
--
USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.
All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website as of 01/11/2005
Hey! This means GPL 3.0 programs won't be allowed to use IBM patents. Awesome.
They will donate now patents to open source software, so open source developpers will all accept software patents. (See EU now)
Then, a few years later, nobody won't donate them anymore to open source projects, and you can't programm something without violating some patents, because then software patents are fully accepted.
This is just a publicity stunt, like many others. They're giving you something useless to them and anticipate you to work for them for free. This is exactly why people don't like the GPL, especially proprietary software companies.
IBM likes to give away junk that's no use to them anymore for publicity, while keeping their prized possessions locked up, and you people think it's a good deal. You're not getting anything worth anything from IBM. Look at the big picture.
It's funny how people can get excited over stunts like these.
"Mom: That's nice of IBM dear, but there's no free lunch from IBM. It's not saying IBM doesn't get a free lunch from Open Source though."
IBM has sold off its PC business and thereby made itself less vulnerable to M$ attack if it moves to more openly support Open Source software. It's strong in services and is already actively supporting Open Source software and Linux. Now it's opening up patents to Open Source developers, contrary to the Gates Corp approach.
Could it be? Could IBM and Apple be the marriage of heaven and hell? Consider the possibilites...Can Microsoft really prevail in a shoot-out against companies that are so obviously picking up and wearing the white hats?
I had the chance to move to IBM from my current employer. I chose not to for family reasons, and when I read stories like these I don't regret it http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/10/ibm_jobs_i ndia/ but they do seem to be more strategicly constructive than the opposition. And consider this. Apple don't have a low cost offering to compete with the budget end of the PC market. Geode systems notwithstanding, the less developed nations could do with low cost internet-enabled devices that could provide communications and educational support for their increasingly educated populations. They need robust non-ground -based communications networks too. Distributed tsunami and other disaster warning systems, anyone? I would love to see something like this happening in the world today.
Waaaait a second...
Seriously now. Remember when SCO were the good guys? Remember when Red Hat were... uh... hang on, they're still the good guys, right? Right? And they'll never, ever sell out to (for example) Microsoft, right? I mean, if they go under, they'll invoke the little known Chapter Eagle Scout bankruptcy protection to ensure that their liquidators eschew their fiduciary duty to make the most money for creditors and shareholders, and only sell the "defensive" patent portfolio to those who promise to use it for Good. Right?
For those with eyes to see, note and note well the difference between an unspecified "pledge", and an explicit, irrevocable license in perpetuity. They are not the same thing. IBM is offering the former for a reason. The reason is so that they can revoke it, at their sole discretion. Ponder on that. Ponder on it well.
IBM have changed before. They can change again. You'd have to be wildly optimistic or touchingly trusting to use any of the inventions covered by these patents.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
In order to foster innovation
Can I read this as a tacit admission that patents do not foster innovation when held secret by corporations, I think I have heard that somewhere!
Does the possibility that IBM might imply this (vaguely) not carry as much weight as millions of open source advocates shouting in the wilderness.
But if any body read the actual patents , you will realize that all of them are OS patents, espically when it comes to multiprocessing. ....."
To be honest, I think this is somehow related to that SCO case crap, they are trying somehow to piss them off, by telling them "You dont sue us, CAUSE ALL YOUR BASE IS BELONG TO US
The lunatic is in my head
Yes its all very nice, and a bit of a personal relief to hear of open source being specifically excluded from the software patent process like this (at least by one corporate), but lets pause for a moment to be a bit cynical. Many of the posts so far, have decided that IBM's game plan is to assist with the process of making software a commodity and making hardware and support vending a bigger share of the cake of IT industry. Sounds reasonable.
Thinking a bit further, it occurs to me that this is a very nice and effective way of taking the wind out of the sails of the anti-software patent movement, the open source community being the most vocal member of this movement. Could this be part of the plan? Throw a bone to FOSS to shut them up and help them push out some proprietary software, as discussed, but also hope the software patent process will quietly crush small software companies that want to develop and sell software of their own, while no body takes any notice any more...?
Who's with me?! I SAID... WHO'S WITH ME!!??
Lest we also forget, politicians perenially propose national ID cards or various other schemes for creating vast databases of every man, woman and child. Today it would be possible to more or less successfully create a program to track everyone. And IBM would surely be more than happy to help a government implement such a program.
They still are lobbying for software patents in the EU, which doesn't qualify a "good guy" action to me. See also the following NoSoftwarePatents.com press release (http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic .php?t=288):
NOSOFTWAREPATENTS.COM CRITICIZES IBM FOR "DIVERSIONARY TACTICS", "AGGRESSIVE PATENT LOBBYING" AND "SQUEEZING" IN CONNECTION WITH IBM's REPORTED RELEASE OF 500 PATENTS FOR OPEN-SOURCE USE
Munich (11 January 2005). Media reports appeared last night acording to which IBM now allows open-source software developers to use 500 of its approximately 40,000 patents. Florian Mueller, campaign manager of NoSoftwarePatents.com, commented on IBM's move:
"Recently IBM made an unsubstantial non-aggression promise with respect to Linux, and now they show off again. It's just diversionary tactics. Let's put this into perspective: We're talking about roughly 1% of IBM's worldwide patent portfolio. They file that number of patents in about a month's time.
In Europe, IBM is a driving force behind the extension of the scope of patentability with respect to software. If IBM wants to assume the role of a post-Christmas benefactor, they'd better stop their aggressive patent lobbying in the EU and their shameless squeezing of small and medium-sized companies with that IBM "patent tax". Let's take it from there. We can still talk about some kind of patent pittance after that."
I hope we'll never need this sort of thing, I mean, they can always claim their patents later, right?
So for the free software community, to live out of other companies 'good will' make these companies owners of a share of the community in which they can still have control.
IP is stupid and slows innovation!
yes if you look at the list of patents on their website and read the small print
This is only a problem for those of us who like to see open source software become part of a proprietary commercial software offering. IOW, noone who agrees with RMS's views on the issue. So they will get what they asked for by not copylefting the software.
I believe the license allows non profit free software only.
So competitors are locked out?
A blog I run for the wealth
One problem with this from the OSS perspective seems to be that many important OSS projects e.g. MySQL, Qt etc. are dual licensed. Many of the patents had something to do with storage systems, so they could be helpfull for a database application. Unfortunately they can't use it.
Written in the BBC's unimitable dumbed-down style.
More likely the software companies will just open the less important patents, the ones that are not strategic to them. At the same time they can now proclaim that software patents are OK, because the little guys are allowed to use patented stuff freely.
I see a day when some company like Lindows (now under new name) cannot steal everyone else's work and then sell it as "proprietary" because they put a few lines in it. This also protects OSS programmers from having their work used in other people's software. In 5 years IBM code (and any other giant who joins them) will be in almost every distro and software databases, Office suites, and many many other programs. IBM code and Linux could be inseparable. It will help develop Linux software that is inexpensive to remove MS from its extortion ring it has going now. And prevent other companies from trying to not share code. By putting US Patents in the GNU Code it makes the GNU OSS always having to be GNU OSS. Good Job IBM, I look forward to my next IBM Laptop (I was going to get an HP)
IBM simply wants to appear a messiah of the open source world, give developers a notion that it's gonna protect linux against all the evil empires and gain goodwil and political mileage from it. 500 out of 40000 is no big deal, i would say. Instead,I'd challenge them to open up DB2. For all their rhetoric, they're scared that they'll get left behind in the race since Sun's(despite all the wrong "anti-open-source" allegations against it) about to open up the crown jewel - Solaris, which is obviously a lot more valuable and of lot more consequence than a complicated, memory-hogging, slow IDE like eclipse that IBM has donated (and made much theatre about). They're less of a technology company and more of an "acquire-and-sell" wall street broker now, spending all their cash eating smaller fish (and getting some patents along the way).
If you are an Eclipse developer, this isn't all that suprising. IBM as of late has been pretty giving in terms of Open Source. This would also appear to preemptively iron out any potential patent issues with their donation of Eclipse.
From the Eclipse Public License (emphasis mine):
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
a) *snip*
b) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, in source code and object code form. This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program if, at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. The patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the Contribution. No hardware per se is licensed hereunder.
Basically if you submit code to eclipse.org that is covered under a patent you own, you automagically grant them a patent license. This now sort of gives everyone at IBM and elsewhere the go-ahead to use the tricks governed by these software patents in the development of Eclipse. Who knows, maybe these techniques have been used already and they're just extending the courtesy to the whole world now that anyone with Eclipse already has a royalty free license.
A lot of these also look like they could be directly appliccable to Linux (if they aren't already). E.g.,
US6317811 Method and system for reissuing load requests in a multi-stream prefetch design
US6298435 Methods and apparatus for exploiting virtual buffers to increase instruction parallelism in a pipelined processor
US6298417 Pipelined cache memory deallocation and storeback
US6286094 Method and system for optimizing the fetching of dispatch groups in a superscalar processor
US6279105 Pipelined two-cycle branch target address cache
US6266767 Apparatus and method for facilitating out-of-order execution of load instructions
US6240474 Pipelined read transfers
US6237081 Queuing method and apparatus for facilitating the rejection of sequential instructions in a processor
US6219743 Apparatus for dynamic resource mapping for isolating interrupt sources and method therefore
US6202128 Method and system for pre-fetch cache interrogation using snoop port
US6189065 Method and apparatus for interrupt load balancing for powerPC processors
US5659722 Multiple condition code branching system in a multi-processor environment
Etc.
Putting these patents out there now would prevent any future SCO-like BS if some asshat takes over IBM someday.
All in all I'd say this is totally a good thing.
Mechanik
...those patents to microsoft?
An important point is being missed in those previous comments. The IBM pledge says that "IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software."
... and thus is sole judge of what happens and whether it will actually terminate the pledge, independently of the type of IP lawuit and the legal decision reached. With enough patents, it is IBM that becomes the law on intellectual property. Very strange.
Si this can go far beyond the sole assertion of software patents in a law suit.
This could be a direct attack against the DMCA and the EUCD (European DMCA), since for example it can denies the use of the patents to anyone attacking free software like deCSS (the free DVD descrambler software). It could even concern hardware patents or a legitimate lawsuit for copyright violation (such as outright copy of proprietary software). However, note that IBM reserves the right to terminate
I am not saying that IBM intends to do all this. But, still, I wonder whether the possibility does not undermine some of the legal value of that pledge.
Thank You!
IBM makes massive committments of marketing, development support, and patent defense to Free Software....because IBM realizes billions of dollars of revenue off of Free Software?
Three words: Bring it on!
IBM's realized that Free Software is Good Business. Amen, brother. That tells me their committment is long term, and so much the better.
One of the interesting things about IBM is that it's among the oldest tech companies in existance -- 116 years old. It's been around enough to learn a few things, and signs are that the institutional knowledge is sticking:
In IBM's calculus, Free Software (or what they call Open Source) is the equivalent of broadly diversified investment portfolios. You don't get the option for a massive win as you might with a locked-in proprietary solution. But if you've got fundamental tech smarts and execution capability, you can get a long-term bankable performance. And it's murder on the guys playing the monopoly gambit.
Speaking for myself, I'm more than happy to see an argument on the basis of self interest for Free Software participation. It's a Good Thing[tm].
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
This statement seems meaningless unless IBM has been on a crusade to inspect Open Source Software for infringement and has been asking for royalties from infringing parties. But they probably realized long ago that this would be a bad or impossible thing to do. So stating that they're not going to sue in the future, when they havent in the past, doesnt seem to change anything much.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Even ones that work for YOU.
Don't be a hypocrite.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
Software Patents are evil! This Must Be Evil!
Now, all kidding aside, this opens three very interesting considerations.
1. With a pocket full o patents in its wings and being protected by IBM, the open source community now has a potential leverage against those who might try to harm it with thier patents. One of the oldest tricks in the books is cross licensing patents with your compitition. Makes them happy, you get dont get sued. The open source community with IBMs help could do the same thing.
2. IBM could have made these patents useless. It could be argued that by opening up the patents to open source means they can no longer defend them. What is the difference from using them in an open source project, giving the project away for free and charging support and making 1k or selling it for 1k and providing free support. Now I know the law is based on semantics so this should be safe but it will have to face challenges in the courts. I *think* this is the first time anyone has done this...
Most interesting...
3. Now if someone is infringing on these patents, will those with a vested interest in the open source license be able to sue? Will they sue? Are the open source, free radicals going to become the "bad guys"?
Will this incourage more open source people to patents things and then allow them only for open source companies so as to block Redmund?
What an interesting slippery slope...
Like many sites, "fuckthis" as user&pass will get you in. If you find a site where it doesn't please create that user/pass ;-)
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Red hat just takes linux, adds a little here, a tweak there, some tech support and ta-da Red Hat linux 699$ (or some $$$).
And Suse and Mandrake....
its the same thing. I've been in software a while. Writeing code is fairly cheap and fast. Debug/ test Maintenance and Support cost $$.
Note that if you RTFA they are only opening 500 patents currently (IBM was granted over 3,800 patents last year alone, they have hundreds of thousands), not their whole portfolio. So, while this is awesome and should be applauded (I love IBM), it is just one step on the road.
The scalloped tatters of the King in Yellow must cover
Yhtill forever. (R. W. Chambers, the King in Yellow
I'm reminded of Joel Spolsky's article on commoditizing the products of related products to increase the value of your product. Damned if I can find the article now.
i will remember this when I buy my next laptop
Feeding the conspricy theorists is so much fun!
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
So next the Rational Tools or DB2?
Well, IBM has been hard at work on the Rational XDE, integrating it with Eclipse. Supposedly a Linux client is due to be out sometime at the beginning of the year. Whether or not it'll be open sourced is anyone's guess.
No comment.
[This article reprinted in full without permission for the purposes of discussion and review, as permitted by Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technolo gy/11sof t.html
I.B.M. to Give Free Access to 500 Patents
By STEVE LOHR
Published: January 11, 2005
I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of its software patents freely available to anyone working on open-source projects, like the popular Linux operating system, on which programmers collaborate and share code.
The new model for I.B.M., analysts say, represents a shift away from the traditional corporate approach to protecting ownership of ideas through patents, copyrights, trademark and trade-secret laws. The conventional practice is to amass as many patents as possible and then charge anyone who wants access to them. I.B.M. has long been the champion of that formula. The company, analysts estimate, collected $1 billion or more last year from licensing its inventions.
The move comes after a lengthy internal review by I.B.M., the world's largest patent holder, of its strategy toward intellectual property. I.B.M. executives said the patent donation today would be the first of several such steps.
John Kelly, the senior vice president for technology and intellectual property, called the patent contribution "the beginning of a new era in how I.B.M. will manage intellectual property."
I.B.M. may be redefining its intellectual property strategy, but it apparently has no intention of slowing the pace of its patent activity. I.B.M. was granted 3,248 patents in 2004, far more than any other company, according to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The patent office is announcing today its yearly ranking of the top 10 private-sector patent recipients.
I.B.M. collected 1,300 more patents last year than the second-ranked company, Matsushita Electric Industrial of Japan. The other American companies among the top 10 patent recipients were Hewlett-Packard, Micron Technology and Intel.
I.B.M. executives say the company's new approach to intellectual property represents more than a rethinking of where the company's self-interest lies. In recent speeches, for example, Samuel J. Palmisano, I.B.M.'s chief executive, has emphasized the need for more open technology standards and collaboration as a way to stimulate economic growth and job creation.
On this issue, I.B.M. appears to be siding with a growing number of academics and industry analysts who regard open-source software projects as early evidence of the wide collaboration and innovation made possible by the Internet, providing opportunities for economies, companies and individuals who can exploit the new model.
"This is exciting," said Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Stanford Law School and founder of the school's Center for Internet and Society. "It is I.B.M. making good on its commitment to encourage a different kind of software development and recognizing the burden that patents can impose."
I.B.M. has already made substantial contributions to open-source software projects in the last few years. The company has been the leading corporate supporter of Linux. It donated computer code worth more than $40 million to an open-source group, Eclipse, which offers software tools for building programs. Last year, I.B.M. gave to an open-source group a database program called Cloudscape, which cost the company $85 million to develop.
Those past contributions, however, have gone mainly to projects that serve to make Linux - fast becoming a viable alternative to the operating systems Windows from Microsoft and Solaris from Sun Microsystems - more attractive to corporate customers. In that respect, supporting Linux helps to undermine I.B.M.'s rivals and can be seen as a smart tactic for I.B.M. The company's commercial software strategy is focused largely on its WebSphere software, which runs on top of operating systems.
Today's move by I.B.
"IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
I think the "or other intellectual property rights" needs more discussion. So now you can't sue someone for violating your trademarks or you lose the rights to the patents?
Granted, it may technically be a done deal, but I think it still needs discussion.
Is this intended? I can see patent suits triggering the issue? But all "IP" issues?
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I did buy some MSFT, but I used some of my profits to buy a Mac with IBM processors,
You could have bought some AAPL and buy lot's more IBMs with Windows on them while they still existed.
...and then start giving it away under the GPL? That way they hold the patent - which prevents anyone else from patenting it.
Obviously cost is an issue.
Just a thought, probably a lame one but who cares after all it is only Slashdot.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Maybe this is a move to prevent the "Big IP Crisis" that would eventually disrupt the whole software patent system.
By letting free-software and open-source people use patents, they reduce a bit the pressure and legimitate the software patents for future litigations.
--
Go Debian!
A rising tide lifts all boats?
If that isn't simple enough:
The same share of a larger pie can be better than a bigger share of a smaller pie.
And rightly so. B should not be granted a patent for an invention someone else had publicated early.
The whole idea of the patent system is to reward inventors for publicating their inventions for the benefit of the society, rather than keeping the inventions secret. A short monopoly is thought to be less harmful for society than a (permanent) secret.
A patent for patent commons makes sense but "other intellectual property rights" is certainly too vague.
I suppose it makes sense as a counter to vague "Intellectual property" threats similar to SCO's various legal wafflings but it is too wide for "normal". If IBM's patents become a critical part of Linux (or something) then all of a sudden you can't sue IBM for copyright infringement if they take some of your code (maybe available under one Open Source licence) and put it in an open source project under a (different) Open Source licence without risking losing access to Linux?
Not that it's likely but all sides need protection and a concrete understanding.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Why is it that all of IBM's activities sound like someone contemplating suicide? First they sell off their "stuff" (the PC division), now they're giving things away.
Next thing, they'll be going around apologizing to everyone for their past transgressions.
Successfully condensing fact from the vapor of nuance since 1998.
Spock: "He did *not* pay for the patents."
Harcourt Fenton Mudd: "Knowledge, sir, should be free to all."
I don't know what made me think to check, but I found myself wondering how the list was made. If I made such a list, you could expect me to have used free software for that task.
Inside the PDF, it says:
/Title(Microsoft Word - ~9653746.doc)
/Creator(PScript5.dll Version 5.2)
/Author(JPrince)
/Producer(Acrobat Distiller 6.0.1 \(Windows\))
Perhaps this doesn't truly indicate how the .doc was made (could have been made by OO), but in my "lists of good and bad" I've still got Adobe welded to the bad list.
Some of this crap doesn't deserve a patent anyway. It's been discussed before, but it's unconscionable that the patent office would have issued some of these to anyone in the first place.
Look at the crazy title of this one from IBM's PDF, for instance.
US6199070 Using a database for program logs
Ridiculous.
We've been keeping our bathrooms locked at work out of fear of being sued by IBM.!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Hurray IBM!
Oh, wait, did they not sell their PC business to a Chinese comany recenly? I, for one, welcome our new Chinese IT overlords
Instead of doggishly hanging on to an outmoded or obsolescent business model, they are making moves to adapt to the changing climate in IT, and seem to be ahead of the curve doing so.
But I'll tell you what - since I'll agree that IBM has done a few questionable things in the past, how about you agree to wait 20 years with me and see what comes of this before you put on the tinfoil hat?
What do you call it when you work for someone and receive nothing in return?
Slavery.
Let the geeks write the software then IBM will make a pile of money
Gee, when are you guys going get tired of taking it up the ass from IBM?? (and other open source slave owners like Apple, Red Hat, and Sun)
Time to start licensing as "Free for non-commercial use ONLY."
There are certainly many motives, but now that IBM is out of the PC bussiness I can only see that they stand to benifet from more open software platforms. After all M$ only real selling point on most of their products over anyone else is better integration, and it is better after all who could possible better integrate with Windows and Office then M$.
Now consider IBM likes to sell end to end solutions, ie we want to sell you the Iseries and the desktop software so your employees can use it. The could write plugins for open office and such much easier and more freely in any case then for M$ office, or any other closed software. Could they possible be doing this so the can cleany attempt to kill something the say Exchange without hurting OgO? Ie we licensed this tech for use in open source, that closed source progam violates the patent here is your cease and disist, and we don't look hipicritical not going after that open project we happen to like and contribute to becase we alread said that its ok to use the IP for open projects.
Could this possiblly be IBM looking for a way to touch off the start of the patent war that will change the software development landscape forever (likely to their favor), without damaging OSS.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Remember they just sold off their PC and laptop lines..
Next will be their PC servers..
Not a lot of sales these days for Big-Iron
They will end up being 'yet another integrator' company selling 'services'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
When you do work for others for free, that is called charity. It's a great concept that is catching on as being pretty cool.
But then, if you just want to do work because you want recognition, or wanted to learn how to do it, or needed a neat new tool, I'm sure we can come up with some other word for it. It's not slavery.
You must have gotten open source confused with intellectual property rights. It happens sometimes. But with IP, your very thoughts are owned by someone else -- just like it is their property (they paid you to think about things, so they argue they should own your thoughts). Thus, if you want to make a living with what you know, you have to work from them and do as your told. It's also called "IP contamination" in some circles. Of course, you are "free" to escape and live a life of poverty unable to use the tools of your trade due to the law of the land. That's more like slavery.
Are any of the patents things OSS can actually USE?
Imagine you had a patent on some cool feature but you dont have a OS to code it into. MicroSoft said no but maybe wanted to buy it.
However you are in the business of selling Linux and if they put it into the software you could market Linux and advertise your cool feature on the box.
Widgets powered by IBM.
I think this could catch on with companies getting exposure via the about button or a logo on the box they sell.
OK, software patents are not inherently evil. People could choose never to enforce any of them ever.
Software patents are currently evil, including the ones that IBM has promised not to enforce against free software.
So you own CompanyA selling OSS using IBM's patents, and then IBM infringes you trademark. Just create a new CompanyB to which CompanyA sells the trademark. CompanyB can sue IBM leaving CompanyA free to continue selling its OSS which uses IBMs patents.
Alternatively, consider CompanyC who is one of many selling some particular OSS, but who also infringe your trademark. You assert rights here are asserted against the company, not against the sourcecode. This differs from copyright and patents which are based on sourcecode.
I forget what the other so called Intellectual Property types are. Can anyone think of specific negative examples for them?
Taking that number and assume somewhat steady over 17 years they must have around 50.000 in total, so they opened up 1%. This is not insignificant in my wiev
Help fight continental drift.
OMG!! this is the funniest comment I've ever read on /. LOL!
Your head a splode
With my reputation?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Maybe I'm missing something... I see the obligatory Microsoft bashing. I see some mildly funny jokes. I see lots of discussion about why IBM is doing this. And I see a huge discussion of not wanting to register for the NY Times site... How come I can't find any discussion of what these patents are and whether they be at all useful to the furthering of OS Software?
Custom, hands-free Linux installs. Instalinux
I was thinking, this is a *REALLY* smart move on IBM's part. I am humbled by their long-term approach.
However, I wonder if they could take it a step further... what if they would pay/submit NEW patents for you under this plan. For instance, we could have ALOT of silly one-click-to-order type patents to submit, but that is *exactly* what M$ is doing right now. We could beat them at their own game.
IBM: Are you game?
This was surely not easy for many in IBM to accept.
I don't wanna nitpick, we'll take it, but most of those patents look like the "IBM bargain-bin". I mean:
:p
"Apparatus for dynamic resource mapping for isolating interrupt sources and method therefore" ???
Don't everybody start up a Sourceforge account all at once now... Seriously, maybe if we had some Source Code then that'd be something. Instead IBM tosses us a few table scraps and we're supposed to go all gaga over that?
I don't think so IBM! My hero is still Fat Albert, so there.
It's not so much a matter of IBM litigating in your defense. They are defending themselves because it is their patent.
Per the FSF "No GIFS" page, the reason they currently are against GIFS is the outstanding IBM patent.
Is that patent a member of the 500? And if so, will that be sufficent to change the status of GIFs, as well as the compress program?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Perhaps I'm just seeing conspiracy where there isn't one. Isn't this a step in the wrong direction, like IBM is offering up it's patents to get the Opensource community to accept them. I think the biggest threat against software patents would be the open source community. If we start accepting the system, working within the system, I can only see this playing into the patent holders hands.
Well 500 patents isn't many considering IBM gets 300 0 patents a year (RTFA). And a lot of these are very processor oriented, not so useful to FOS. BUT some are really important, like 6,173,292 (Full-Text Data recovery in a transactional database using write-ahead logging and file caching). This is basically the LSN patent (AFICS) and so is critical to any modern RDBMS system.
Read Epic the first RPG novel.
See, IBM licenses a lot of their patents. They are making some money from the patents they have. Consider this: If they all of a sudden decided to license all of their patents for free to the OS community, a very large portion of the software world would be very upset.
Also, remember that IBM has already taken the stance that they were not going to pursue patent infringment with OS developers. Guess what? That means every patent anyway. So this latest move is just trying to explain to people that IBM is very, very serious.
(I also would not be surprised if among the thousands of patents that IBM owns, only 500 or so deal exclusively with software.)
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
A writes cool software that uses a new technique.
B sees the software, realizes that it is patentable, contacts A and works with A to obtain a patent for A.
A sells patent to B for $1. B gives A a beautiful plaque and eternal gratitude.
B licenses patents for all open source software developers.
B, on its own, develops 20 new patents derived from this one. Those 20 turns into 40 more patents. B licenses those patents similarly.
Of course, A and all OS developers benefit from B's work.
C is left out in the cold, never able to develop technology like what's in the patent.
Man, I would HATE to be C in this scenario. It would be a big motivator to license software with an OS license.
Oh, give it five to ten years, and IBM + OS community will develop and implement some truly awesome patents. About that time, expect our attitudes towareds patents to shift slightly, because it will benefit us far more than it will the others.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
IBM sells PC division to communist-China company
IBM gives patents away for free to people developing communist-OSS applications
WHEN YOU BUY IBM, YOU'RE BUYING COMMUNISM!
(nb: this is a joke, and should be modded "funny". I'm not serious, and so this should not be labelled "flamebait". Get it? Got it? Good.)
I am the maverick of Slashdot
So if I create code using two IBM patents, one that is "in the 500" and another that isn't, will IBM defend me from being attacked by IBM?
awarding prizes to Open Source projects that demonstrate use of IBM patents
some type of clear, licensing suitable for smaller companies that want to take some of this technology commercial.
IBM exists to make money for its shareholders. A lot of these patents haven't gotten their fullest possible use. Ultimately, IBM will retain control of these products-but it needs to faciliate some experimentation if they want IBM to have the stream of products it needs to support its business.
We need a slashdot interview!!!
The US Supreme Court has always said that software for general-purpose digital computers is not statutory material for a patent. Want to accuse them of misunderstanding patents?
A hammer has a useful purpose. Patents on software for general-purpose digital computers are not like hammers. Explain why land mines are not inherently evil, and only then will you have an explanation that works for software patents too.
did i miss a new version of the GPL? last time i checked the GPL MAKES NO STATEMENT AS TO PATENTS WHATSOEVER.
when was the last time you have heard even CLAIMS of FS/OSS stealing code (SCO's LAUGHABLE claims not withstanding)? i would interprit this patent license to still require the recepiant to comply with the software license, and that even before considering that they say in the license that they permit it for GPL code (implications that no GPL terms violates this patent license)
Oninoshiko
The problem is that nothing any company does is ever good enough for praise. No matter how positive the move they will be picked apart and their motives questioned.
I have talked to IBM people before this move, and found out that they are against software patents, and have made statements to that effect, but until the law changes they still must file patents to ensure they protect their own interests.
Even if their motives are self interest they have also acted in the interests of open source. I also expect that the 500 patents will be patents that open source projects are already infringing, and therefore they will all be very useful.
In a way you are right. No centralized authority can be trusted. Not IBM, but not Sourceforge either. We need to be finding ways around centralizes authorities.
However, until we do, this is a great post along the way. Better a benevoleant giant than a malevolent one. IBM has at times run roughshod over people, but it's never been their company policy, unlike the current monopoly.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
More precisely what it says is:
If you are using open source software containing an IBM patent and you sue an open source project, you lose your right to use the open source software.
If I have closed source software, or have otehrwise already obtained a right to use the IBM patents, then in that case the original agreement is still binding and I can do whatever I want to the open source projects.
But if I'm using open source projects in the first place, then it seems I would be unlikely to file a patent lawsuit anyway, since it would tend to be counterproductive.
If your code is acting bloated, and is running rather slow, it's likely and predicted that some loops you will unroll.
a Samson Option
:D
I'm not sure that's an appropriate description. Isn't a Samson Option one where you die and take your enemies with you? Somehow I don't think IBM expects to die in the process
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
That sequence of characters is most likely patented by you-know-who...
They are out there to make oodles of money for their shareholders, and so long as they stay within the law they are required to focus on that as their primary goal.
That said, this is still good. In fact, with that in mind, it may be even better on a practical level than pure altruism. IBM started over 100 years ago(albeit under a different name) building electrical census counters. You don't stay in business that long without continuously recruiting good people, and those good people tend to hire other good people. If IBM, probably the oldest continuously active IT company in the world, can make money off of open source, thats going to get noticed. A big move like this, presuming they are useful patents, will get a lot of attention, much more so than simply supporting an existing and popular third party OS. This isn't saying "open source exists and we can't ignore it or we'll lose money"... This is saying you can *make* money off open source, as opposed to simply limiting your losses.
Does this include their patent for their Jet Powered Surfboard? If I remember correctly they bought this one just so they could display it in their collection of obscure and unusual patents.
When Microsoft tries to inject it's "royalty-free" patented technology into standards, and hence into free software that uses those standards, the reaction quite rightly ranges from suspicion to outrage. When IBM encourages developers to incorporate it's royalty-free patented technologies into free software, we're supposed to thank them for it?
How does it make a jot of difference if "has pledged to seek no royalties from and to place no restrictions on companies, groups or individuals who use them in open-source projects"? The technology is still patented. IBM can withdraw it's "pledge" at any time. How do you fancy a replay of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft MP3 debacle times five hundred?
Apart from anything else, software incorporating royalty-free patents is likely to be license-incompatible with the next generation of free software licenses (GPLv3 among others).
This is at best a well-intentioned blunder, and at worst a trojan horse. If IBM was serious about helping the community, they'd release these patents into the public domain.
I stand corrected. There goes the Mutually Assured Destruction analogy too...
Clever signature text goes here.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom."
Developers have the freedom to be innovative in software and software monopolists are thwarted?
Cool!
Yes, you are wrong about somethings I am sure. So is everyone. And do you really want me correcting you all of the time? I would have to follow you around and listen to everything that you say. And I can be kind of a jerk, plus you would have to put up with me stinking up your house and eating all your food ; )
But on a serious note, because I was troubled that I made the error about corporate vs cooperate:
If you have trouble understanding people when they are speaking you can always ask them for a better explanation of what they mean. Most people will gladly provide this.
Ebonics has been around for a long time, and the style of how it works was well documented by linguists at least by the 1920's as far as I know.
Many people confuse urban slang with Ebonics. I understand how slang can be annoying. But Ebonics is not slang. It has simple rules that are about the way that words are pronounced. Most notable is that it often seems to drop a final consonent sound so that non-Ebonics listeners might think that the Ebonics speaker has the tense of a verb incorrect.
As far as modern English Grammer goes, I was thinking 1750's or so. The elites did not speak French in England at that time except if they were talking to Frech people.
A good example of a perscriptive vs descriptive view of language: The description of English allowed for a double negative because that was the way that people actually talked. The perscriptive grammatarians decided that they could have none of that. So they perscribed a rule that prohibited the use of the double negative. They did what they thought was logical. And I can see how they would think that this was correct. Modern linquistics doesn't perscribe speech.
There are very good reasons to have correct grammer for many things: Laws, contracts, instructions, directions, etc.
But in the case of people with their automatic typing and their thought overflowing, some times the grammer nazi's just kill the whole flow of what is going on.
I agree that if you don't understand a post then you should ask for a grammer correction or to clarify a typo.
But there is a certain type of poster who just decides to parse up everything that anyone posts and pretend that they don't understand just because they don't like the jist of what the post is all about. That kind of behavior bothers me.
I agree, and was upset at myself, for mistakeing the idea of cooperation with corporation. And I looked up corporation and found that it does come from corpus. But it is true that some people say 'they' and some 'it'. Both are correct. And my point is that both are correct and if the only thing you can say about that other post is an it vs they lameass flame, then why post anything at all?
Correct grammer is very important in formal documents, directions, instructions, contracts, laws, etc. But in everyday person to person discourse the one who insists on formal grammer drives intelligent people away. And this type of person maybe doesn't understand why people are loath to have any kind of discusion with him/her.
So, do yourself a favor, forgive small errors and only insist on a clarification when you are actually confused by what someone else says.
Or, if you must, and as a debating tactic you can parse the words of people and act confused as if they are stupid. But you just serve to annoying and possibly enrage the other person. If you get off on doing that, then fine. But just don't expect that other person to feel respect for you.
I mean dyslectic
Seriously, spelling has always been an issue for me which is why I go off about understanding verses meaning.
Which of the above words do you think that I meant.
If you are really confused then I am sorry.
I can't help you then.
I would rather be dyslectic than less-dicks-ic