Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Buys 750 IBM Patents
eldavojohn writes "Considering IBM's portfolio gained 6,180 last year alone, it's not a huge number. But after a dispute with Yahoo a couple weeks ago, Facebook has purchased 750 patents from IBM. That's over thirteen times the 56 they were reportedly holding. The humorous rumor is that Yahoo might have been licensing these patents from IBM. If you can't beat 'em, buy the patents they're licensing from another company. Another rumor is that Facebook might be just getting started in their bid to expand their patent portfolio (video). No word yet whether the purchased patents directly pertain to Yahoo's infringement claims on messaging, privacy controls, advertising, customization and social networking."
Bring the bridge to the troll...
The fact that a single company can get over six thousands patents in a single year is proof enough that it's a bad idea to allow software patents.
Competition and free market is now impossible because of these stupid patents that should never have been granted in the first place.
I wonder how long before they start to Edison these patents?
It sounds like the board game "Monopoly" needs an update. Who cares about hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place? Own the most patents, and charge the highest licensing fees, and you win!
"I have one word of advice for you, son, Patents! Not plastics, Patents!"
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
This might be a crackpot idea but it just popped into my head so I haven't thought it through...
As a compromise to combat patent trolls, litigation, the stifling of innovation, etc., how about changing the law so that once a patent changes hands it enters the public domain or ceases to be. It's imperfect, but has many benefits.
It would protect the initial inventor/patentor. You wouldn't have the same outcry as if you banned patents all together. However, is also a limitation as it would not stop litigation brought on by the original inventor. But it would put an end to patent trolls and would enable patents to enter the public domain at a much quicker rate. Sure, patent transactions would slow, but it's not unthinkable that a company would purchase a patent to protect itself from a lawsuit knowing that that very purchase will destroy the patent.
Patents are like movie scripts - most of them never go anywhere. If I were managing IBMs IP I would be more proud of selling 750 than being granted 6000, because it's an external validation of the quality, as opposed to quantity, of the patents. (And by "quality" in this case I really just mean "marketability," or "return on IBM's investment in research," as opposed to something harder to quantify, like scientific merit).
As a developer, it really disheartens me to think that any application I create that becomes popular is likely to be litigated against for patent violations. I've never searched for patents or seen one and thought "AHA! That's how I'll make this algorithm!" No, I just code and create logical solutions to problems that are presented.
No one should be able to claim ownership of the fact that 2 + 2 = 4 and force others to always use 3 and 1 to do addition for the next 20 years. God forbid, someone patents 3 + 1 = 4!!!
Make it's because the movie convinced me that Mark Zuckberg tries really hard to be an asshole. I can sense it. Facebook is going to become the do more evil company of the 22nd century.
I always feel like an insect watching titans move around and sue each other when i read stories like this.
Given the recent SCOTUS decision about the patentability of "laws of nature" (Mayo v Prometheus), following right on the heels of Bilski, I would be dumping software patents as fast as I could, and would be overjoyed to find someone like Facebook willing to pay me for them.
Once again, IBM proves that they're no dummies. :)
To me, mass patent purchase means they have more money than they can usefully spend on product development. This because the stock market disconnected from real product development a long time ago, now it's just money chasing money. There may be some savings in patent licensing, almost certainly not enough to justify purchase.
The software patent end of the industry is a house of cards. Currently it only holds up because everyone plays along. In order to sustain the house of cards all the major players have to cross license all of their patent portfolios. No one really even knows which patents they are violating, or being violated at any time.
You only see small skirmishes play out, like Motorola vs Apple, major ones are always settled. The major players use this cross licensing to try and keep small and medium sized companies from coming into their space. Once you generate enough revenue to put up a good fight, they have to let you in 'the club'. Facebook crossed that threshold. FB will now cross license with all the other players.
A system initially designed to foster innovation is now a detriment. The mass cross licensing of patents should be considered in anit-trust light. It allows the major players to share ip, while blocking the others and keep their prices artificially high as a result. No different than direct collusion. The system should be unwound.
Best bang for the buck is to spend lobby money on correcting the problem. I hoped long ago that Google and Facebook, who have been built on Open Source knowing the dangers and harm of "Business Process Patents", would fight to fix the problem. Instead, both seem content to play the game.
The worst part, is that it costs them more money to play the game than it would to lobby to correct the issues. I still have hope, especially considering how Google has been beating up Oracle like they are a Kanya girlfriend.. but it's pretty far out there.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Doing a little work on their own with little guidance from management. There's a patent program where, they award a few dollars and give your these impressive certificates for successive levels of patent applications and ultimately, an award or two. Because keep in mind there's a huge difference between an application and an award. In order for an application to make it as far as being submitted to the government, it has to pass through an army of attorneys at IBM.
If you are smart enough and fortunate enough to make it through that gauntlet. then the patent goes into a huge database where a different organization scours the countryside hither and yon looking for people who might either buy them, license them or potentially infringe them in which case another battalion of attorneys gets to work.
The fact that IBM even parted with this property means they sold them for more than what they were worth to IBM. And facebook is in way over their depth if they think they're getting the better of Big Blue.
Doing the right thing always seems logical, but when you look at the bigger picture it's not always effective.
Take your commute, for instance. If the people around you did the right thing, they would leave three seconds between their bumper and the car in front of them. Everyone would hit their brakes less frequently, traffic would flow more smoothly, there would be fewer accidents, less wear and tear on the road, and everyone would get where they were going faster and with less stress. Makes sense, right? But then some asshole will exploit the spaces that each of them have left, weaving in and out, forcing people to hit their brakes, causing waves of slowdowns and possibly accidents.
This is nothing new. Alexander Hamilton observed that people act mostly out of self-interest. The solution is to create a system that makes it in one's self-interest to do the right thing.
In theory, the solution here is to create a system where it is in the interest of a company to hold a large stable of software patents and not use them. In other words, if you can demonstrate that you hold a significant patent and have allowed small competitors to do things that don't blatantly violate your patent but might be in a grey area, for every year you do not use it like a hammer to crush competition, you get a tax break or some other incentive. But if you have a challenge from some significant threat, you still have the option to exercise your right to litigate... you just forfeit your tax break. The system should also make it more difficult to successfully litigate with a software patent. Therefore the company is forced to make a choice and decide which is in their best interest: litigation or the incentive to not litigate. In the process, the greater good is served because the patent is effectively held in trust by a company that is not likely to use it unless it's absolutely necessary, and this protects everyone from patent trolls.
Companies really shouldn't focus on patents as much as they do, because the idea that a patent really protects your intellectual property is flawed. At the end of the day, anything you patent here is just going to be copied and sold in China or India, anyway. India recently allowed a local drug company to copy a cancer drug patented by Bayer so it can sell it for 97% less, so long as it pays a portion of the proceeds to Bayer, effectively ignoring Bayer's R&D costs. And China... well... anything goes in China with regard to patents and copyright as long as it's not deemed a threat to the Party. I couldn't find an e-book copy of K&R anywhere for sale... but you can download it in PDF format for free from Chinese universities.