Slashdot Mirror
IBM Locking Up Lots of Cloud Computing Patents
dkatana writes: In an article for InformationWeek Charles Babcock notes that IBM has been hoarding patents on every aspect of cloud computing. They've secured about 1,200 in the past 18 months, including ~400 so far this year. "For those who conceive of the cloud as an environment based on public standards with many shared elements, the grant of these patents isn't entirely reassuring." Babcock says, and he adds: "Whatever the intent, these patents illustrate how the cloud, even though it's conceived of as a shared environment following public standards, may be subject to some of the same intellectual property disputes and patent trolling as earlier, more directly proprietary environments."
Not exactly. Given the threat the patent trolls represents, it is of good advice for a company to patent as much as possible its own contributions and inventions in order to not have to throw the shareholders' money at lawsuits initiated by the patent trolls companies. If you were the IBM CEO you wouldn't do otherwise. It may appear outrageous, but the first responsability of the CEO is to protect the money of the shareholders and make it profitable. Clearly, getting the patents will protect the shareholders' money.
Achille Talon
Hop!
Exactly right. Add just a smidgen of shortsightedness and some pressure from the board, and you have the perfect storm of next-quarter-itis.
After a few quarters like that, the CEO takes off for the next company, as the company tries to put out the fires they left behind them -- fired experts, cheapened and crippled products, new hires that don't know much about the domain, insufficiently-tested but out-the-door-anyway products...
Yeah, responsibility to the shareholders. Which means: Short term thinking and cannibalistic profiteering. That's the US corporate mantra, right there.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
since when the hell is "the cloud" based around "public standards"!?!?!? Each and every major vendor's offerings are pretty much unique and proprietary. vSphere isnt EC2 isnt SmartOS isnt KVM isnt HyperV isnt OpenCompute. Some of these are more open than others while some are entirely closed systems.
This is why none of this should be patent eligible. It's harmful to allow software to be patented especially when the patent is overly broad and general in it's language. It's harmful to allow any configuration of systems and software to be patented. The USPTO is completely incapable of telling the difference between what's patent worthy and what's bullshit in these areas.