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."
Become SCO!
...will eventually crash and burn. Sure it's convenient, powerful and cheap, but inherent with major security risks. If I were a company, there is no way in hell I would ever deliberately host or put anything on the cloud. I don't care how 'secure' things are, there are way to many attack vectors and unknown vulnerabilities. It's only going to get worse before people start to see if for what it truly is - dangerous!
and it's not yours.
They offer, or at least offered, pretty decent incentives to file patents. Of course, the only guy I knew in the company who ever actually wrote one was the most useless software developer I'd ever met, and his patent was for some basically trivial file parsing we'd implemented with methods known since the 70's. So the quality might not always be there, but you can bet they'll make it up in volume!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
Now you know why it's not a "reform" (replacing the traditional First to Invent), but rather a Xmas wish list item pushed by the likes of IBM, Microsoft and Qualcomm.
When I was at IBM, I remember that patents were front in center for employee reviews. They kept emphasizing, that's a big part of your job, along with customer escalations and L3 support.
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 will test how IBM's intentions are aligned with well being of the cloud industry.
First reaction may be to label them as patent trolls and assume they will attempt to lock down the market preventing anyone else using the concepts of cloud computing and suing other projects out of existence. Alternatively, however, IBM may be acquiring these patents to protect developers against other companies taking opportunity at becoming trolls by taking advantage of this green field. Imagine if Oracle or similar got these patents. Once approved, they will immediately they will go after all other vendors in order to become monopoly in the market and try to make money based on damage lawsuits.
I hope this is a good natured move where IBM will just get them for the sake of own safety, and therefore indirectly for other developers' safety, and will not actively use them for unfair profit gain.
How many of these boil down to "a system and methodology for doing something we already do all the time but in the cloud"?
So many computer patents these day are pretty much garbage.
I hope these actually have some merit instead of just having "in the cloud" tacked onto existing stuff. So many patents which get issues represent nothing new or novel, just "but on a cell phone" (which is a special case of computer), or "but with a network".
Part of me suspects a good chunk is neither new nor novel.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
so they have a valid point.
Do these patents actually cover 'cloud computing' or do they refer to the abortion that has become the next great marketing term/buzzword following green ??
Cloud computing used to refer to a developing technology that allowed a virtual work environments to be cobbled together from varied technologies and hardware platforms. Then suddenly storing data in someone else's server farm or data center was putting your stuff in "the cloud" and any true meaning was lost under the avalanche of marketing and salesmanship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
IBM has been for many, many years using their patent portfolio offensively to generate revenue. Their favorite targets are mid-sized companies with enough money to make it worth their while but not enough resources to fight them in a prolonged court case nor the will to risk their business on the result of that. The terms of the contract are never released, so it doesn't make the news, but they are VERY well-known for doing this, and if you search the Internet, you will find many articles from solid sources that talk about it. Their success is the reason Microsoft has joined the fray in litigating their patents, so don't be surprised if you start hearing more about MS legal too.
If you are a mid-sized cloud company, beware!
The 'cloud' hasn't been formed using public standards, they have been formed using standards that have been commercially available for many decades (as 'cloud' is nothing new, just a new hip term), and is now available on the cheap.. Also public standards doesn't mean they are patent free..
"I wonder why the USPTO is overworked and understaffed?"
Congress keeps cutting their budget.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+