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."
A) These things may have been patented before they decided to do this
B) They don't have to worry about someone else patenting them
C) They're only opening them up for open-source projects, meaning IBM projects can use them and open-source projects can use them, but IBM's closed-source competitors can't.
Twenties Retirement
Best of luck and don't let anybody say they didn't try.
To protect the people who use the patented work from entities who might have registered the patents and enforced them?
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:
Because if it is licensed only for OSS projects, then MS and the like cannot use them without opening up their source code.
AFAIK, IBM makes most of their money in hardware and support, and helping OSS is an advantage to them. They don't get much of an advantage by helping other companied become richer. So they don't help them.
You make a good point, but considering how much IBM benefits from Linux already, and how all that benefit would be lost if the community died, Wall Street ought to see this as a sound strategic decision by IBM.
Oh, and by the way -- considering that it's 500 patents out of 40,000, you've got a really strange definition of "most."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
I'm buying a crapload of IBM stock.
Me too. It is surprising and inspiring to see IBM doing this.
Open source today is like bell bottoms in 1950. It wasn't cool just yet.
IBM is way ahead of the other heavyweights in recognizing a trend and getting ready to capitalize on it.
My business is deeply involved in open source. When I explain our strategy to people such as our silicon vendors, they chuckle, and I'm sure they look at me like some kind of hippie pinko, and not the greedy capitalist that I'm proud to be. But it's getting easier - with guys like IBM backing OSS, we can look forward to a technology landscape where people are making money AND advancing technology instead of just ripping each other off.
Your intellect is truly dizzying...
By participating in a mutually beneficial arrangement, the Linux crowd is a bunch of pawns. I would definitely not have figured that out myself.
Responsible investing in companies that improve society, sure ... but irrationally throwing away your money?
It seems IBM forsees a future in which software is commoditized. This doesn't bother them because they sell lots and lots of hardware. It seems they believe they will sell even more hardware if people aren't "wasting" their money on software.
See the cycle? If much of the money that previously went to Redmond goes to them instead, do you see how they just might make a buck or two?
Open source changes the notion of who will make money. IBM has made major moves to make sure they will be the bennefactors of this change. They have a much better chance at dramatically increased riches than almost any other "linux vendor" you can name.
TW
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
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.
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?
Investing in IBM is hardly throwing away your money.
I for one believe that how you spend you money is 1000 times more important then how you vote. I spend money every day and I get to choose every day whether I am going to make the world a better place or a worse place by my purchases.
Instead of buying MS stock buy IBM stock. Increase the amount of good in the world and decrease the amount of evil.
Besides do you really buy a stock in a company whose CEO calls you a communist?
evil is as evil does
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
You're insane if you think IBM's push into Open Source is being done for any idealistic reasons of Good vs Evil. IBM just wants to make software a free complimentary commodity so they can make tons of cash on hardware and service/support. Basic economics.
The fact that this causes them to do something that you consider "good" is coincidental.
" You're insane if you think IBM's push into Open Source is being done for any idealistic reasons of Good vs Evil."
Read my sig. Evil is as evil does. If IBM is doing good then it makes the world a better place. It does not matter what their intentions are.
Acts are what matters. Acts are what we judge. If IBM gets to make a ton of money by doing good then more power to them. I will definately support that. The alternative is to try and make money buy lying, cheating, stealing, suing, and cpreading evil and chaos which is what MS and SCO does.
Why wouldn't you support IBM over MS/SCO? Really I want to know.
evil is as evil does
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.
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.
considering how much IBM benefits from Linux already
Seriously, how much Linux stuff does IBM sell as compared to their Windows 2003 stuff. Their revenue off of a half a dozen mainframes probably challenges their Linux revenue. Don't forget just how big an amorphic blob IBM is, and don't think you really mean much to them.
-- Microsoft is the most expensive commodity operating system and office suite vendor in the marketplace.
Because IBM seems to have decided the future is in software services, not writing software. Let the geeks write the software then IBM will make a pile of money telling companies what software they need, putting all the bits together, installing it then maintaining it.
Well, to start with, IBM gets one of the most talented R&D departments on the planet, and they don't even have to pay salaries.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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!
Didn't you get it, they meant _most_ of the 500 patents out of the 40,000 have, which BTW still is a really strange implementation of "most." ;)
Responsible investing in companies that improve society, sure ... but irrationally throwing away your money?
Exactly how many open-source projects currently pay IBM for patent licenses? And how many do you expect to pay in future?
IBM is losing nothing here. What they have gained is a great deal of goodwill, and given open-source development a boost. Remember they have a great deal of experience in bulding upon open-source projects, where there competitors generally do not - so anything good for open-source is good for IBM at the moment.
This is a smart move by smart people, and it follows in the footsteps of other smart moves. This is an indicator that IBM really understands how open-source can help their business, and if IBM continue in this fashion, they will make a great deal of money while the rest of the world catches up with them in the open-source stakes.
That is why this encourages people to invest.
Now that they sold the PC business, they don't need MS any more.
They don't do desktops.
They want consulting, and the better the GPL software is, the better they can compete against Novell with Suse, against Oracle, SAP and Sun.
so... why would Linux need the patent for turning shit into powder?
Now seriously, do you think that all 40,000 patents have application in Linux?
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
and lots and lots of services.
People traditionally didn't buy big blue for the snaziest gear, they bought it so if something went wrong a reassuring man would arrive very quickly and fix it.
in a comoditised software world that model (with the hardware) will be more powerfull than ever.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
...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.
Easy. IBM makes more money supporting software. I've had IBM Global Servces support a Oracle installation on Solaris.
Open Software makes the Suns and Oracles in this picture (current company's using Postgresql on AMD with a similar sized database) get a smaller piece of the finite IT pie, leaving a bigger piece for IBM.
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.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
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.
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.
What if your intention was to feel good about doing something nice for someone else? Wouldn't this be a selfish act in itself? I mean, you don't help an old lady across the street because she needs helping. You do it because you want to feel good about yourself. You want to feel like you've made a difference. You want to know in yourself that you are a good person, and in helping someone else, you are, in effect, self-serving.
My point is that in every "selfless" act, there is always a selfish reason. The extent of that selfish reason varies, (in helping an old lady across the street) from "I'm average joe I want to feel good about myself" to "I'm a professional hitman and this gets me closer to my mark".
Either way, (unless you're the assassin of course) the old lady still gets across the street safely, and you get to feel good about yourself. Win-Win.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
What the hell are you babbling about?
If Microsoft did this or opened up their sources, it would be a MASSIVE boost for FOSS. The total peace of mind from patent worry and amount of extra code available... it would be a very good thing for the FOSS world.
But sadly it would also be a bad thing for Microsoft who would be shutting off half their future revenue. So it won't be happening.
Free Gamer - Free games list and commentary
You sir, know nothing about Buddhism.
In Zen, the primary goal of one who is enlightened is to teach others, so that they too may become enlightened.
Indeed, look to Buddha himself, and what he did after he attained enlightenment.
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.
Cool, but they won't do it, because it might bite them on the ass. It would invalidate most, if not all, of IBM's current cross-licensing deals with closed-source companies.
What IBM could do, is DONATE these patents to open source. That way, open source could play the cross-licensing game by itself. That, however, would lead to several problems:
First, what IS "open source"? It's not a legal institute, it is a concept. IBM cannot donate anything to open source, only to some sort of foundation. And with the constitution of a foundation, you get all kinds of political games, and in the end open-source developers would not benefit from the move.
Second, open source does not have the legal capabilities of defending itself against litigation. Basically, patents you don't defend mean crap.
Third, a move as described would only mean anything if the patents are key patents. And giving up key patents would be a very risky move on the part of IBM.
So, for the time being, we NEED IBM. But I don't mind. The have the power to achieve many things which the open-source community can't. And as long as they favor open source, we have a lot to gain.
And don't kid yourself about IBM moving against MS in any big way. Such a clash of titans both companies want to avoid. But MS will understand IBM's signal with this move.
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.
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!!??
Funny. MS gives away IE to make browsers a commodity in order to strengthen another segment of their business. IBM gives away IP to make software a commodity in order to strengthen another segment of their business. Both are done for selfish reasons, and certainly both actions hurt one group or another.
Both companies are simply doing what's in the best interests of their shareholders. Neither company is inherently good, so let's not evangelize them.
The Parent was pretty funny, and shame those who replied who didnt see the joke.
However, the parent was unintentionally insightful as to the reasons why people stick with XP. Frankly everyone THINKS Windows comes "free" with every PC. When we market Linux as "free" (either freedom or price) they think, but we got XP for free too. And when they consider that some "free" versions of Linux actually costs about £5 for the disks. suddenly it doesnt look so "free". They do not know the true cost of Windows (£100 over here in the UK).
I am not sure about what its like in USA, but if you go to PCWORLD (Our big Computer Chain Store). You will see Windows XP Professional often featuring somewhat more prominently than XP Home. And where XP Home / MCE is available, it is sold as an "upgrade". The impression customers get is that the XP home that comes with a new computer is "free" and part of the computer, and there is an offer to "upgrade" the computer by purchasing Pro.
Those who dont have Windows XP, see the XP Home upgrade edition as a kind of upgrade that makes their computer's 10x more powerful. This then causes dissapointment. Which is why the salesmen try to peddle a new computer with XP Home pre-installed. Imagine the marketing for this: Either you can purchase this Xp Home for £100 which may run slower on YOUR computer, or you can get for £500 this funky new powerfull multimedia computer with printer, and scanner, and it comes with XP already to go. You can imagine what most customers are doing. This sort of selling technique does give the impression that XP is "free" (just look at the costs)
As for Linux, where customers have actually heard about it, they think that its "not for THEIR Packard Bell/HP/Dell PC's" and that you need a special PC to run it.
Its not that surprising when you consider that if they have ever seen Linux run, its on a custom PC by an enthusiast, and not something that they see in PCWorld.
The point I am trying to make, is that the Parent poster played the role of a typical PCWORLD saleman, and while things are like that, XP will continue to rule.
Have a nice day!
You are comparing Apples and Oranges.
MS gave IE away not to make browsers a commodity, but to capture and lock-in a market. IE contains plenty of proprietry extensions that is not a standard. Giving away IE effectively locks into MS own proprietry standards, and makes MS money elsewhere. When a company locks a customer into a technology, its often because they are not confident it would stand up on its own otherwise.
IBM is "giving away" the OS to make the OS a comodity. Linux is a "standard" they do not control. In many ways, it is possible for company XYZ to make a Mainframe with Linux, and it could even compete with IBM, and run the same sort of software as the IBM Mainframe. However, IBM is confident in their abilities as a hardware manufacturer, and as a solutions provider to compete against any competitors, and this is what PHBs will see.
In a way its like comparing a Korean/Japanese car with a German car here in the UK. The cars fromt eh orient are usually cheaper than the Mercedes, when you look at it in the forecourt. But, when it comes to the parts, you will find the Mercedes is far more reasonable. I can say this is very true, I have a Mercedes C-Class and my sister has a Nissan Micra. I spend far less on parts than her car. A pair of Brake Discs cost £14 for the Merc, and £22 for the Micra. Even more crazy, the platic badge on the Merc costs £3.50, whilst on the Micra costs £17.50.
Have a nice day!
Red hat just takes linux, adds a little here, a tweak there, some tech support and ta-da Red Hat linux 699$ (or some $$$).
And Suse and Mandrake....
its the same thing. I've been in software a while. Writeing code is fairly cheap and fast. Debug/ test Maintenance and Support cost $$.
Personally, I applaude IBM's management for leveraging open source technology.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
I am not talking about selfish or selfless acts. I judge the acts not the intentions behind them because the intentions can never really be known. SOmetimes people themselves don't know why they did certain things.
Road to hell is filled with good intentions.
evil is as evil does