Slashdot Mirror
IBM Breaks Open Source Patent Pledge
Jay Maynard writes "IBM has broken the pledge it made in 2005 not to assert 500 patents against open source software. In a letter sent to Roger Bowler, president of TurboHercules SA, IBM's Mark Anzani, head of their mainframe business, claimed that the Hercules open-source emulator (disclaimer: I manage the open source project) infringes on at least 106 issued patents and 67 more applied for. Included in that list are two that it pledged not to assert in 2005. In a blog entry, the NoSoftwarePatents campaign's Florian Mueller said that 'IBM is using patent warfare in order to protect its highly lucrative mainframe monopoly against Free and Open Source Software.' I have to agree: from where I sit, IBM likes Open Source only as long as they don't have to compete with it."
A crappy old green 720×348 graphic card?
Okay okay, I'm an idiot for even thinking it.
Check out their website. The quotes they've listed.
“ I have installed your absolutely fantastic /390 emulator. You won't believe what I felt when I saw the prompt. Congratulations, this is a terrific software. I really have not had such a fascinating and interesting time on my PC lately. ”
— IBM Large Systems Specialist
“ Such simulators have been available for a long time. One of the most complete (up to modern 64-bit z/Architecture) is hercules. ”
— Michel Hack, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
An apparently excellent emulator that allows those open source developers with an "itch to scratch", to come to the S/390 table and contribute. ”
— Mike MacIsaac, IBM
IBM -HAS- said "Go ahead and rip our stuff off, it helps us in the long run"
And now that its paid off, they're going for more money by killing it. Despicable.
I'll bet IBM will apologize for accidentally listing the 2 patents that it swore it would not.
This will leave the creator with 171 patent infringements and nothing to complain about to slashdot.
These are hardware patents, not software patents. What's interesting about this case is we have software violating a hardware patent, as it's emulating what the hardware does. A key word here is "emulating."
Now, I have a hard time thinking that all those patents are really being violated. I've worked with processor emulators before, and the way they actually work is very different from the actual hardware. Many of the patents seem to be hardware-specific, and not what you would actually implement in software. I won't speculate beyond that because I don't know much about the hardware and emulator involved in this case.
What's _really_ interesting is that IBM instructs students competing the Master the Mainframe contest to download and use Hercules. At least they did in '06. http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/university/students/contests/mainframe/index.html
...who wouldn't like to invest time and money to create something, then have to turn around and compete against someone who basically just copies it and gives it away?
When you say "copies it", do you mean "ctrl-c, ctrl-v" or "re-engineer from scratch"? If you mean the former, that's a serious accusation, and you need to back it up. What part of their work was electronically copied? If you mean the latter, then so what? Do you really mean to imply that people have the right to distribute ideas and yet still own them? Do you think the descendants of some cave-man should be getting royalties for every combustion engine that internally uses fire? Yes, we should like it when people improve on our ideas. And yes, doing something in open source is a significant improvement (perhaps sometimes even if it's not quite as good).
Since only two of 171 patents were covered by the covet not to assert. IBM doesnt need those two patents to win its case.
In any event the two patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. When IBM promised not to assert
these patents others acted in reliance on that promise. I suspect IBM's lawyers knows the law sufficiently well to not try to
do that in actual legal filings.
That surprises me, who wouldn't like to invest time and money to create something, then have to turn around and compete against someone who basically just copies it and gives it away?
No time and money was invested in creating at least one of the patents. For example, look at one of the "infringed" patents, US Patent 7254698. The claims are merely a "shopping list" or "marketing glossy" of the peculiar feature of an ALU, which happens to be installed in a particular mainframe, that the Hercules guys would like to emulate:
Does multiply/add and multiply/subtract
Five deep pipeline, one result per cycle
binary or hex floating point format
Works on two different architecture formats.
It would take about a minute to make a spreadsheet in Excel that theoretically infringes on that patent, and probably an hour or so to make a perfect replica. Really all you need to do is implement mX+b=y with a five deep stack/array, given some peculiar input and output formats.
Now IBM will sell you a circuit board circa 2001-ish that will do this. They spent all their effort making an expensive machine that implements these simple math ideas in silicon. No one is stealing their physical hardware, or blueprints, or VHDL/Verilog, etc etc.
The emulator merely does the same calculations in C, and its free.
It boils down to IBM saying "no emulating our exact instruction set"
One ethical problem with patents like 7254698, aside from obvious ones like trying to patent basic linear algebra equations, is the supporting docs are all from 1999 to 2001 ish era. But its doing the submarine thing in that it was not issued until August 7 2007, "around a decade" after they were shipping silicon, more or less, sort of. And it won't expire until around 2023 which in the computer field is an absolute eternity.
I will give IBM credit, that unlike a patent troll, they actually built silicon to do something, not just patented an idea. But not much credit.
I have not looked into all hundred+ patents but they're probably all very similar to this one, but for other parts of the CPU instruction set.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
If people actually read stuff before the commented, the world would be a lot better.
The letter from IBM is directed at TurboHercules, a commercial enterprise making money off of IBM's IPR. Though we don't see the letter that prompted this, it can be guessed from the letter that TurboHercules said something along the lines "we don't think what we do, because we didn't realise IBM had IPR in this area." Which does seem rather rich, since this commercial enterprise is engaged.
Second the letter doesn't say they are going to enforce these patents, but that they do have US patents in this area. Also they don't appear to be attacking the open source project, but a commercial entity that is making money off of IBM's products.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.