IBM's Supreme Court Brief Says That Patents Drive Free Software

H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "For the Supreme Court's upcoming review of the Bilski decision, IBM has submitted an amicus brief claiming that software patents 'fueled the explosive growth of open source software development' (!) (p38 of linked PDF). EndSoftwarePatents, for its own amicus brief, is looking for help building a list of free software harmed by software patents, and a list of companies that distribute free software and are taxed by patent royalties."

Comments

Re:WTF IBM

[Chris Mattern]

While I agree with your post, a patent is certainly *not* like a hurricane.
Hurricanes destroy value. Patents reallocate value to the inventor.

Patents destroy value because the tarriff exacted by the inventor makes uneconomic uses that would otherwise be practical. Part of the value that is not destroyed is then reallocated to the inventor.

If the value created by encouraging the inventor to make the invention in the first place outweighs the destroyed value, then the patent is still a good thing. But once the invention is in existence, patents unquestionable destroy value.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:WTF IBM

[Antiocheian]

IBM is correct, patent holders find it easier to "open the source" while preventing others from employing the idea. This is exactly what RMS wrote: Open Source and Free Software is not the same.

Read here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

Re:Put's the lie to their open source claims

[voidphoenix]

Read "The Road Less Traveled" and "People of the Lie" by M. Scott Peck, M.D. for a professional psychologist's definition of "evil", in a serious sense. He also discusses how organizations can be "evil".