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
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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!