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."

Comments

Sweet!

[dolo666]

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?

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of you remember when IBM were the bad guys?

Weren't they the bad guys last week? I can never keep up.

Re:Sweet!

[mrchaotica]

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."

Re:Sweet!

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[Total_Wimp]

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

Re:Sweet!

[domenic v1.0]

IBM giving away its IP portfolio....HARDLY! Read my previous statement regarding IBM's patents. 500 patents is a tiny fraction of the mountain of patents they own.

This is a very good idea because IBM wants to stem away from guys like this and IP Hoarding companies. You can't sell what everyone has, so in order to protect its patents...IBM is freely distributing it, in effect trying to hit those IP hoarding companies where it hurts. I see stocks rising and money not being thrown away by IBM, but money thats coming to them for investments in their IP. IBM has been in the game a long time folks, and they have been playing the market right and setting market trends for years. I trust them....hell, I even work for them!

Re:Sweet!

[GeorgeMcBay]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[bnenning]

Besides do you really buy a stock in a company whose CEO calls you a communist?

Well, I did buy some MSFT, but I used some of my profits to buy a Mac with IBM processors, so it all works out...

Re:Sweet!

[killjoe]

" 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.

Re:Sweet!

[BrynM]

Responsible investing in companies that improve society, sure ... but irrationally throwing away your money?

You're thinking of IBM as a software company like MS. IBM has a huge hardware and consulting business. If you think of how open source is growing more robust, getting out of the sofware market might be a good idea. Even laymen are aware of open/free software now. I think IBM is looking 20 years ahead and seeing a huge library of OSS code that the public will itself build upon. Think of all of the libraries in your average *nix system that would have been considered completely legacy and abandoned a long time ago by proprietary companies. Some of that code will be around in the years to come. In this light, proprietary companied are reinventing the wheel from their own code libraries rather than the vast sea of open source. It makes great long term sense for IBM to migrate their business to the things the average person is incapable of: creating complex hardware and consulting for complex solutions. Don't forget that they charge top dollar for both ;)

Re:Sweet!

[femto]

> Why do they feel like a has-been?

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.

Re:Sweet!

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like Windows XP Home Edition.

It is the most powerful operating-system for Pee Cees. It looks not as gay as Mac OS X by Steve B10 Jobs and has 1,0000,0000 times more softwares that the Linus-operating-system.

Plus, it comes with every Pee Cee for free. People who have grown acusstomt to paying RatHat 699 $$$ or more can hardly beleive this when I consult them with my proffesional Internet- and Network-Service-Center-Bureau.

I always tell them:
"Windows XP Home Edition is all you can empower to leverage the outcome-bottomlime of your stickholder ... plus even more!"

My customers usually are like: "OMG!"

You should really try it one day; it has a very nice light-reddish color theme to hit your tastes.

Thank you!

Re:Sweet!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[FreakWent]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[child_of_mercy]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[geminidomino]

Please, don't mix religion with economics.

Yeah, that's the Republicans' job. <grins, ducks, and runs like hell>

Re:Sweet!

[SenseiLeNoir]

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.

Re:Sweet!

[rednip]

As the start of the relationship between Hitler's Germany and IBM is now more than 70 years ago, it'd be safe to say that those who were responsable for turning a blind eye are now long dead and most likely burning in a special level of hell (well, one can hope). However I agree that this story does need to be told, but more as a warning of the misuse of technology and the drive of greed, than one of the current moral state of the IBM leadership.

Personally, I applaude IBM's management for leveraging open source technology.

Reg-free sites

[tepples]

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!

[MrRTFM]

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

Now *that's* cool. Thanks, IBM!

[mrchaotica]

My only question is, is the license revokable?

Nice, now if only M$ would open their patents

[ravenspear]

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.

Re:Nice, now if only M$ would open their patents

[mrchaotica]

Heck, open source programmers were even using the patents before Microsoft applied for them!

Re:Why even patent anything?

[wmspringer]

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.

IBM's strategy

[tepples]

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:

• Encourage development of free software for IBM hardware and service platforms.
• Fund development of free software with royalties collected from publishers of proprietary software using the methods in question.
• Protect free software from patent suits by retaliating against those who use patents against IBM or against free software.

Re:IBM's strategy

[Jameth]

Other Possible Strategy:

Make it more difficult for those who only make software to compete with open-source, moving the software realm further to being primarily valuable to solutions companies, of which they are the most successful.

Re:Why even patent anything?

[back_pages]

You're going to get a crapflood of "in case someone else tries to" replies. The fact is that you can register an invention with the USPTO without going through the patent application process (basically a patent application without the necessity of proving it is novel or non-obvious over prior art) for a smaller fee and less stringent requirements.

My point is that (to those who know more than three things about the patent system) this is a valid question. My best guess is that IBM feels that the more stringent patent process provides a stronger contribution to the open source community, but it could also be a change of heart within the IBM corporate direction (regarding patents they've already paid for) or a more predatory action against their competitors (where opening the other guy's potential IP to open source is more offensive than defensive.) I can't answer any better than that, but to reiterate, this is a valid question to those who know more than three things about the patent system.

If Microsoft did this..

[yorkpaddy]

If Microsoft did this or open up their sources it could set FOSS back years. Thank you MS for being selfish.

Re:If Microsoft did this..

[Deusy]

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.

sold my soul - read the article

[rcpitt]

IBM is either sold on Open Source as "the way of the new millenium" or making hay before the patent paradigm of the old millenium is stabbed in the heart.

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.

Re:sold my soul - read the article

[Anonymous Coward]

And It will be of great interest to see which patents they let out of the box. Have to wonder if there isn't some underlying spite in it all. Suppose: IBM lets a patent out of the box , but Microsoft and perhaps others currently licenses that very same patent? Implies: whatever Microsoft licenses of IBMs patents they still have to pay for, as long as they keep their source closed. Whereas some new OpenSource startup or other gets it for free, as long as they opne the source. Is this away also to force open the hand of the closed source model?

Proper link

[Chuck Chunder]

here

Many ways

[SuperKendall]

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).

Re:Many ways

[geminidomino]

Except it's not. If you RTFSummary, much less TFA, it's being opened up to "Open Source" as defined by the OSI, not "Free Software" as defined by the FSF.

Which leads to a bit of a sticking point in this plan, unless the announcement is clearer than the NYT article. The BSD License is OSI approved. If I were to use some patented algorithm *shudder* in a BSD Licensed program, could someone take that and wrap it up in a closed source program? Or could they just take the non-patented code? Or would it reduce the BSD license to effectively another GPL by forcing the code to stay open?

Re:Many ways

[AndrewRUK]

Well, what IBM have said is:

Subject to the exception provided below [that IBM can revoke this pledge for people who try to assert patent claims against OSS], and with the intent that developers, users and distributors of Open Source Software rely on our promise, IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed above, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software.

So, while you could use the patents covered in a BSD licenced program, anyone wanting to use your code in their non-OSS program would have to work around the patent, or obtain a patent license from IBM.

That the BSD license allows third parties to use your code in their closed source programs does not change the fact that something in the code may be covered by a patent of IBM's, and that IBM have pledged not to assert that patent against OSS does not affect their ability to assert it against other software.

Re:Now *that's* cool. Thanks, IBM!

[Chuck Chunder]

They are only revocable from people who seek to leverage patents against Open Source themselves first. From the PDF:

IBM's Legally Binding Commitment Not To Assert the 500 Named Patents Against OSS

The pledge will benefit any Open Source Software. Open Source Software is any computer software program whose source code is published and available for inspection and use by anyone, and is made available under a license agreement that permits recipients to copy, modify and distribute the programs source code without payment of fees or royalties. All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the purpose of this pledge..

Subject to the exception provided below, and with the intent that developers, users and distributors of Open Source Software rely on our promise, IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed above, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software.

In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party will take advantage of this pledge and then assert patents or other intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source Software, thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software developer to create innovative software programs, or the freedom of others to distribute and use Open Source Software, 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

Mmm...

[DoChEx]

Is this not like, you first hit is free???

Red-baiting Bill G. can kiss my heiny

[Just Some Guy]

I don't want to hear another word from Bill Gates and his ilk about how only Communists want to share with their neighbors. This is the best news I've heard for those of us trying to explain the issues to our relatives and employers:

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.

Re:Red-baiting Bill G. can kiss my heiny

[wwahammy]

I wouldn't call IBM conservative. They're large and old but they're for the most part pretty progressive nowadays, especially on diversity.

Hell Yeah

[_Hellfire_]

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!

Re:Now *that's* cool. Thanks, IBM!

[femto]

IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed below, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries, against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software.

In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party will take advantage of this pledge and then assert patents or other intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source Software, thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software developer to create innovative software programs, 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.

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.

Who is Behind this?

[femto]

Surely this has been in the pipline for a long time? Who is behind it?

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?

On top of what everyone else has said.

[Chuck Chunder]

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.

With any luck, IBM is the first of many

[gidds]

Looks like a really clever move.

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!

Re:Now *that's* cool. Thanks, IBM!

[andreMA]

Sue us and leave yourself liable to being stomped by IBM.

That's what I get out of it - a Samson Option. Inspired by SCO, I'm sure.

Two points

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

There is one litttle trick in the question...

[JollyFinn]

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.

BSD?

[skyman8081]

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.

Re:Are they good patents?

[schmobag]

To me, it looked mostly like low-level processor and bus related stuff. Could this be a backdoor way of promoting their PowerPC line, by getting it better supported by open source software?

A very intelligent strategy for IBM.

[aixguru1]

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?

IBM could block the whole MS patent scare...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

What it is in it for IBM?

[Per Abrahamsen]

This is very good for free sofwtare and it is very good for the economy. I love how IBM apparently both get free software, and is intend of passing this understanding to others. It was seen in the Linux prodigy commercial which in very simple terms explained the power of free software to laymen, and it is seen in this quote from the article:

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.

What I don't see is how it directly help IBM. Of course, economic growth and job creation will indirectly help IBM, as IBM will likely take its fair share of an expanding economy. However, that would put "enligthened self interest" to the extreme, with a bit of hybris in it. Red Hat can calculate that way, better have a smaller part of big Linux market, than dominate a small Linux market. But IBM isn't as dominating in the world economy as Red Hat is in the Linux market.

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.

Get a clue

[Chuck Chunder]

I presume you're just spouting off rather than actually knowing what you are talking about.

Their revenue off of a half a dozen mainframes probably challenges their Linux revenue.

Those mainframes run Linux.

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.

Re:Get a clue

[IgnoramusMaximus]

What mainframes run Linux?

Both the zSeries and S/390 series.

IBM is in _service_ business

[notany]

Old saying:

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!

I have a question... (Prior Art)

[Vo0k]

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?

You all don't get it.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.