Slashdot Mirror
IBM Seeking 'Patent-Protection-Racket' Patent
theodp writes "Wikipedia defines a protection racket as an extortion scheme whereby a powerful non-governmental organization coerces businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase the organization's 'protection' services against various external threats. Compare this to IBM's just-published patent application for 'Extracting Value from a Portfolio of Assets', which describes a process by which 'very large corporations' impress upon smaller businesses that paying for 'the protection of a large defensive patent portfolio' would be 'a prudent business decision' for them to make, 'just like purchasing a fire insurance policy.' Sounds like Fat Tony's been to Law School, eh? Time for IBM to put-their-money-where-their-patent-reform-mouth-is and deep-six this business method patent claim!"
I don't suppose anyone has considered that they might use said patent to sue trolls out of existence. Which would be neat, and altogether too ironic.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
If IBM receives the patent, then it can disallow others from participating in the practice. This patent alone could be a jury-rigged bit of patent reform, for this particular abuse. (Assuming IBM doesn't go crazy and utilize the patent itself.)
I'd tend to think this is more their purpose, than to become the master bully.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Why do I see the potential justification of this being similar to Amazon's justification of patenting 1-click ordering?
Such a patent, should it be granted, could become a perfect show-stopper for Microsoft's patent FUD and could also wipe out patent trolls as a side effect.
Patenting patent racketeering = A Good Thing(TM)?
I think Steve Ballmer already has prior art on this method.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
To block Microsoft from copying IBM business practices? On the bright side, IBM have to their credit never indicated they were going to sue linux distributors.
It may also be used as the example of just how screwed up the patent system has become. If any company has to have this patent, I can think of much worse companies than IBM to have this one granted.
I'm sorry, but this is beautiful. For IBM to patent the process of patent abuse raises legal sarcasm to a fine art form. This is a legal hack of the first order.
;)
Whether it ought to be allowed or not is a different question, but it still brings tears to my eyes.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
At first, I thought this was a joke from The Onion, but holy guano, Batman! It's for real!
I'm not particularly upset, though. I.B.M. already is known to systematically exploit their huge patent portfolio, as would be expected by their shareholders, but I've not heard of them doing so, recently at least, in an offensive manner. I.B.M. has been trying hard, for business reasons, to be a "good citizen". If anyone has to have such a patent, best that it be them. If nothing else, it'll put a bit of a damper on the true patent trolls.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
This might be a great thing for small software companies. At the moment, they can't possibly afford defensive patent portfolios. This makes them extremely vulnerable to malicious suits from big companies that want to squash them.
Being able to buy a slice of protection from IBM would eliminate one of the biggest risks that small developers face. Of course, small companies can't pay millions of dollars in legal fees. IBM will have to offer to defend their clients in court in order to make this work.
To er is human.
If the patent system is really as screwed up as all that, will the prior art in this case matter? Because as far as I can tell, patent trolls have existed since nearly the very beginning of the system.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Possibly karma whoring, but I haven't heard the phrase deep six in a while and wondered where it came from.
That bastion of knowledge, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, says this:
This phrase is derived from the noun "deep six," meaning burial at sea and referring to the depth of water necessary for such a burial. The term was later used as slang for a grave (customarily six feet underground) and, by extension, as a verb meaning "to kill."
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
Then let the fun begin.
...What else could it really be?
How many joke have been writing about patenting the patent process?
Well looks like a very large patent portfoilo company has money to toss at such a joke..
Do realize ladies and gentlemen this is a bold and rather cavalier move on behalf of IBM. It's more tongue in cheek really, laughing at patent trolls and a majority of large corporations long bereft of the spirit of true competition.
It a rather elegant, subtle, and expensive way of inviting said patent trolls to "kiss my hairy ass". hehe
go go IBM
Hope is the currency of fools
Further, I hope IBM aggressively enforces it.
Just imagine a set of deep pockets like IBM going around suing every large firm that aggressively impresses upon smaller firms that it would be prudent to pay for 'the protection of a large defensive patent portfolio.'
Would that not make the world a better place?
1. A method for extracting value from a portfolio of assets, comprising:granting a privilege to a second party by a first party at time t1 to permit the second party to exercise the privilege upon the occurrence of a predetermined event occurring at time t2 where t2>t1, and wherein the exercise comprises obtaining an interest in one or more assets residing in a dynamic pool of assets comprised of assets from the portfolio of assets at time t2, wherein zero or more assets are in the dynamic pool at time t1 and said zero or more assets are not in the dynamic pool at time t2.
So a company has a pool of assets. It gives somebody else a right to in the future, after some event has occurred, gain one or more of those assets. Some of the assets may have left the pool by the time they do this. Basically, we're talking about the standard financial instrument known as an "option", but over any of a pool of assets rather over a specific asset.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the privilege is defined in a floating privilege agreement between the first and second parties, the floating privilege agreement having a term and specifying the predetermined event and the type of interest to be conveyed to the second party upon execution of the privilege.
The right can be time limited, and constrained to a certain kind of selection of assets.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein a number of assets in which the second party receives an interest is limited based on the floating privilege agreement.
The selection can be the number of assets acquired.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the assets are intellectual property assets.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the intellectual property assets are patents.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the intellectual property assets are copyrights.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the intellectual property assets are trade secrets.
Obvious.
8. The method of claim 2, wherein the assets include intellectual property assets selected from the group consisting of patents, copyrights and trade secrets.
But it doesn't have to be only IP. There can be other stuff as well.
9. The method of claim 4, wherein the privilege is exercised by the first party transferring rights in one or more of the assets in the dynamic pool of assets to the second party.
Pretty obvious, really.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the transfer is by assignment.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the transfer is by license.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the license is an exclusive license.
OK, so there are multiple ways of transferring the rights.
13. The method of claim 4, wherein an occurrence of the predetermined event is a trigger event defined in the floating privilege agreement.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the trigger event is a litigation-related event.
15. The method of claim 13 [sic, should clearly be 14], wherein the litigation-related event is a filing of a complaint against the second party.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the complaint against the second party alleges that the second party infringes an intellectual property asset of a third party.
Now we get to the meat of the patent. This is not a patent on patent-trolling, it's a patent on a mechanism for defending against patent trolling. What they're patenting is a legal agreement that says "if you get sued for patent infringement, we'll grant you a patent license for one of our patents so you can smite the bastards".
17. The method of claim 13, wherein exercising the privilege comprises the second party selecting an asset from the dynamic pool of assets in response to occurrence of the trigger event.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein exercising the privilege further comprises the first party qualifying the selected asset for transfer to the second party to ensure the selected asset is appropriate for use by the second party f
Patents like this are proof that America has too many lawyers and MBAs and not enough engineers. Or maybe I'm just nostalgic for the good 'ole days when patents actually had to be material... a new and novel application of a technology or product feature that was a result of, you know, actual WORK originated by the person/company submitting the patent. This patent is basically a patent on a business type. It's kind of like patenting the concept of a bank, whereby you erect a building with a "vault" that allows "customers" to "withdraw" and "deposit" money. The American patent system is starting to exist primarily to employ lawyers... patent everything (no matter how stupid or obvious), and sue everybody.
I'm imagining that not only will this be used to sue MS, and Patent Trolls but once IBM has sued them hopefully the "mainstream" media catches on, and congress will reform patents to only include physical inventions (For example you can patent the Blu-Ray disk itself, but not the encryption key for it) Sure MS can claim prior art, but the goal of this I don't think is to sue patent trolls/MS but rather to bring attention to the patent system and how flawed it is. But Im glad IBM is getting this rather then some other company (MS, SCO, Apple) because IBM seems to know that Open-Source is the future and is moving towards it and I doubt will sue them with a large patent portfolio.
There is no "disagree" moderation, and troll, flamebait and overrated are not valid substitutes
This is obviously a jab at the concept of business process patents. It is a common practive today, and thus has a great deal of prior art to invalidate it.
Msft has filed hundreds of bogus patents. And braying jackass Steve Ballmer uses msft's bogus patent arsenal to threaten the world on a regular basis.
Msft's err, "business partners" : scox and acacia, have actually gone as far as filing lawsuits, apparently on msft's behest. Scox has sued Autozone, Chysler, IBM, and Novell.
How about IBM? I don't remember IBM constantly threating everybody with harassment lawsuits. IBM certainly has the patents - and unlike msft, those patents are for real.
So, I don't know, but maybe this is a defensive move on IBM's part?
And Ballmer will be able to prove it, too.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if Mickeysoft opposes this patent on prior art grounds?
Isn't it true that IBM invented this in the 50s and 60s? They held Microsoft's place long before Customer Assurance was a gleam in Bill Gates' eye. Maybe a kinder, new millennium IBM wants a patent so they can sue any other company that uses the tactic instead of relying upon government prosecution?
He seems to understand the patent.
...mailed the application to the USPTO two days earlier due USPS delays....
See application filing date...
Then it will be time to patent a number of other interesting (and unethical ) processes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I am going to patent the process for filing patents. Then I'll sue the fuck out of anyone who tries to file a patent for anything. This plain can not fail!
I don't agree with the nay sayers on this. I do agree that it is a racket.
The issue is that this will likely cost IBM a great deal of money in both litigation and administration. Unfortunately the facts are that the extortion is already taking place and its by the legal community.
We might note that patent trolls often come from the legal community.
I think this will serve to highlight the problems.
Guess I must be the only one to immediately think that to deep-six means to screw someone thoroughy up the arse. I put it past any of the other decent Slashdot readers to have such thoughts.
Aren't there several instances which would demonstrate prior art?
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Three Squirrels
Kinda makes a hoodlum think;"shaking down neighborhood businesses for 'insurance'is small potatoes".
Selling home and family "insurance" to IBM bigwigs who actually have money is a prudent business move.
I predict this will be more common business trend in the '10's.Probably for government officials too.(no,wait they already deal with hoodlums under a different business model,LOL)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
This is not exactly what I'd call a bad thing. IBM patents the process of running a patent extortion racket. Then they sue MS for patent infringement for trying to extort money from Red Hat and other Linux companies.
Everybody wins! (prior art not withstanding...)
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
IBM seems to get that technical support is a better way to make money than bundling software.
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Come on - every time Slashdot posts an article on a patent troll, some wag suggests taking out a business model patent on patent trolling - its the law!
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
This patent is invalid, by the mass of prior art published on Slashdot alone.
Most times any patent frivolity is discussed on Slashdot, there are any number of "business method designs" for patenting patents, or patenting extortive intellectual property methods or business models. Many in the handy format of " 1. XXX / 2. YYY / 3. ZZZ / 4. ??? / 5. PROFIT!!! "
Though this post would make a great joke, the patent crusader Homer Simpson would say " It's funny because it's true. ©.
--
make install -not war
That's a nice patent you've got there. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it. ... well.
It'd be a real shame if
My brother and I have got a little proposition for you.
We can guarantee you that not a single patent will get done over for fifteen hundos a week.
One ring to rule them all.. or in other words one patent to rule them all.
This is the "let's patent stupid patents" patent that has been so often discussed on /.
You know the joke, you patent the process of patenting obvious things, and then none of the patent trolls could operate unless you licensed them to. Which, of course, you wouldn't.
The question is, is IBM going to use this as a defensive patent against patent trolls, or try and get into the patent troll business directly?
But, as already pointed out in a recent discussion, what if a patent troll, which is not utilizing any of its patents, comes up against you?
Then you refuse to license this patent to the patent troll, so they're in violation of your patent troll patent.
Perhaps IBM is doing this as a tool against Microsoft and their friends. Wouldn't it be cool for IBM to claim patent infringement against MS when they use that tactic against someone?
Overrated, Troll, and Flamebait mod points are not to be used towards posts you disagree with. That IS censorship.
...because business method patents are pointless and unnecessary. Why are we issuing a patent to a company that spent about 15 minutes in a board meeting, and 0 dollars on an entirely obvious business plan?
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
...is that after twenty or so years, it expires. Then (assuming lack of prior art in the first place) they can't sue the patent trolls out of business any more.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
If they do get the patent, will the Mafia sue IBM for infringement? Or, will IBM go after the Mafia?
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
It's hilarious how all the Slashdotters have this vision of IBM as some kind of noble knight on a horse, who is going to protect their virtue and maybe marry them and make them a princess so IBM and teh Lunix can all live happily ever after.
IBM was the evil empire before any other tech company. Everyone else is just trying to walk in their footsteps.
Between Stallman and IBM, Lunix is just being used as a tool to attack Microsoft and try to gain dominion over the FOSS market. Do you really thing IBM is putting billions into Lunix just as an act of charity? IBM is a freakin' business! They are making money off teh Lunix! And Stallman is just trying to get all applications to use GPLv3 code so that he can start controlling the people who write the code and own the applications.
In Slashdot land, everyone uses Teh Lunix, Stallman tells them what software they are allowed to run (or write), and they are all using IBM hardware. Welcome to your future.
You're assuming you have to run faster than the bear.
The point is not to force a quick settlement, it's to discourage them from taking you on in the first place. They usually don't have to go after any particular company, and if your company has something that can complicate the case they'll chase a company that can't run as fast.
The idea is that only IBM can be a patent troll!!! IBM is putting their mouth where it aught to be. IBM then can sue all patent trolls for - well being patent trolls!!!!! I love this idea! GO IBM!!!
I miss the Karma Whores.
This is a wonderful, delightful piece of work!
If this patent is to be successfully contested on the basis of prior art, some corporation is going to have to go public with the details of its patent protection racket. That company would be exposing itself to a lot of nasty business risks (possibly RICO, possibly anti-trust measures, more probably loss of sales and market cap, very definitely some image problems). I doubt that there are very many CEOs who would like the risk/benefit ratio of such a plan, especially as this kind of thing could break their personal career even if it is successful in blocking the patent.
If IBM is awarded the patent, it can use it to publicly expose the backroom details of the MS - SCO deal, the MS - Novell deal, and similar deals where there is good cause to suspect that some form of patent protection was involved. Through lawsuit and discovery, the secret clauses in those contracts would become public. This would stifle a lot of those kinds of activities, which would be a Good Thing for anyone favoring competition of products based on their technical merit.
IBM could also put the patent in the Linux patent protection pool. I cannot see anything negative for FOSS coming out of that.
But basically I see this patent as a way of demonstrating just how absurd the entire business model patent structure is.
Go IBM!
I spent several year at senior position at Intel .... 99% of the "Next Big Thing" ideas that were floated by were total inane BS.
What happens in the meeting room should stay in the meeting room (99% of the time).
Looks like this one got out
Its not the years, its the mileage
Though I have to laugh at the "patenting of being a patent troll", I can see ultimate irony if IBM donated the patent to the Open Invention Network, Open Source Patent Protection pool.
Consider the potential outcomes, it just has to bring a smile to your face!
And hey, maybe the absurdity of the patent, coupled with its devastating use against a few notorious patent trolls, would wake someone in power up to the need for a return to the protections for IP the Founding Fathers intended. Instead of the obscene mega-business pandering mess we have now.
Never ascribe to malice or conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Sounds like Fat Tony's been to Law School, eh?
Nah. Me and Fat Tony go waaay back, and that gnocchi-eating paisan couldn't fit through the door of law school, much less graduate from one. If youse'a askin' me, my money's on Benny the Brain.
Nonaggression works!
Prior Art
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
You're forgetting that up til the '90s, IBM was the Evil Empire...
Its funny enough that IBM are actually doing what we have joked about for so long. However, what will be far funnier is watching all the patent trolls squirm as they realize that opposing the patent by citing prior art is the equivalent of an admission of guilt as patent trolls. If they don't oppose they are open to patent infringement claims. If they oppose they publicly identify themselves as patent trolls. Laughing my ass off!
Well, the term 'FUD', as defined by Gene Amdahl: "FUD is the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that IBM sales people instill in the minds of potential customers who might be considering Amdahl products."
This isn't really what you're talking about, but it's similar, and I'm sure some Googling would turn up cases of copyright/patent shenanigans by IBM during their Empire days.
This is kind of an inverse GPL for patents. I would say that IBM has understood the strategy of the GPL at a deep level and applied it in a completely novel (some might say, perverted) way. Frankly, it's brilliant.
There are (at least) two ways IBM can apply such a meta-patent. (1) They can use it to become the only legally permitted patent troll in the United States. (2) They can use it to sue existing patent trolls out of business on the grounds that those trolls are violating IBM's patent on patent trolling.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Time will tell.
Be very, very scared when someone from IBM calls you and says that they have an offer you can't refuse.
'Cause that sure seems to be what IBM is doing!
Many folks have compared MS to the IBM of old. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? MS is a bunch of weak pansies compared to the old IBM. When IBM was sued by the government, they not only did not lose, their legal fight literally outlived the judge in charge of the case. IBM stretched it out for thirteen years, IIRC, and the government has not come near it since. MS fought, and lost, in what, three, four years? Sure, the eventual judgment was largely voided, but that was due to Posner more than any strategy on MS's part.
SirWired
Lawyers claim that this stuff is well-formed within their system, which they claim is useful. It's so shoddy it's laughable. Imagine a bunch of lawyers trying to define a CORBA contract, or a Z specification. In the Middle Ages, they got away with this kind of self-enriching three card trick, but in those days most people were illiterate. If we continue to stand for it post theory of types, post modal logics, post recursion theorem, post Godel, well quite frankly we deserve to lose every penny they relieve us of.
Well if so they better stop it. I already filed a patent on filing a patent before others can file the same patent. The patent office approved it on account of being really fucking confused.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
FYI- Fat Tony is the former Dean of a Law School here in New York and is now a US District Judge. LOL.
As for corporate racketeering, the RICO* statutes should clearly ban these sort of practices, but the courts have created bogus exceptions for corporations involved in racketeering. A prime example is the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's rule providing complete protection for corporate-involved racketeering. A unanimous** Supreme Court overruled it in Kushner Promotion, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001), but Fat Tony runs things around here and RICO-proof corporations are still the law around here, just a tad more discretely.
*Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
** Yes all nine Justices found the excuse for a corporate exception to fraud racketeering ridiculous and unsupported.
Here is a link to the Supreme Court case cited above: Yes, this case is about the famous Don King boxing promoter. Note that the circuit said he doesn't count as a person because he is a corporate employee!! LOL! And therefore cannot be charged with committing fraud. Without further delay I provide you with the Supreme Court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=533&page=158 You can't make this stuff up. (PS. Sorry for the extra post, I didnt know how to add the link to the original reply.)
I love how it has to be specified that it is a non-governmental organization doing the racketeering. I guess when the government does it, its just plain theft via the threat of physical violence. Or taxes. Whichever you prefer.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
Hence patenting their business model to make them vulnerable. Brilliant!
Mustn't be novel...
...the whole idea of business patents in the first place disgusts me.
Going back to the original quote:
"...an extortion scheme whereby a powerful non-governmental organization coerces businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase the organization's 'protection' services against various external threats"
Applying this definition to a Patent-Protection plan certainly seems appropriate. It sounds like a scheme that only lawyers could think up.
But now that I'm thinking of "extortion" in broader terms like this, it made me consider other situations. When I read the quote in the first place it made me immediately think of paying large network infrastructure companies extra money in order to not have latency intentionally imposed on my packets. So does the parallel hold here too? Is network neutrality a fight against extortion? Should we be petitioning for the appropriate application of the RICO act?