IBM Breaks Promise; Threatens Open Source Company Over Patents

from the so-much-for-'reform' dept

Tue, Apr 6th 2010 5:36pm — Mike Masnick

For a while now, IBM has been positioning itself as being in favor of really fixing our broken patent system (even as it's remained at the top of the food chain in terms of companies filing for patents). However, we've always been a bit skeptical of IBM's claims about this -- as they quite often seemed to be more of a PR positioning move, rather than any real commitment to fixing the patent system. Almost exactly five years ago, the company made a big stink about freeing up approximately 500 patents for use in open source offerings. At the time, even that seemed like more of a PR stunt than anything else, but still, you'd at least think they'd live up to their word.

Not so apparently.

Slashdot points us to the news that IBM has threatened an open source project with some patents -- including two that were in that list of 500 (along with over 100 others). In the past, when IBM's nastier patent activities have gained attention in the tech-blog world, it's been known to back down, so it wouldn't surprise me to see that happen again here. But the fact that it made this threat in the first place, yet again, calls into question IBM's real commitment towards moving away from supporting patents as a bullying tool.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: open source, patents
Companies: ibm

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brooks (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 6:14pm

I tell ya
It's pretty ridiculous that a company as small as IBM sometimes comes off as uncoordinated, and like the left hand doesn't know what the right's doing.

You'd think every one of their employees -- there're only four hundred thousand or so of 'em, after all -- would know the company's stance on patents and open source. It's not like tiny companies like that have trouble disseminating organizational knowledge.

Shame on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 6:31pm
  
  Re: I tell ya
  Yeah, why would the people in charge of threatening companies with patent lawsuits know anything about IBM's public stance on patents!?!?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:45pm
  
  Re: I tell ya
  It's pretty ridiculous that a company as small as IBM sometimes comes off as uncoordinated, and like the left hand doesn't know what the right's doing.
  
  Your Honor, I'm not guilty of shoplifting that item with my left hand. You see, my left hand actually though my right had paid for it! There are billions of cells in my body so you can't really expect each one of them to know what all the others are doing, can you? That would be ridiculous! Surely you can see how this was just a simple case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
  
  Sound about right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 6:48pm

What do you expect from a company founded my a Nazi supporter...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cruse (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 6:51pm
  
  Re:
  Godwins Law, You=FAIL
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 6:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ..and it only took until the 3rd post. How you like them apples ;P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 8:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Applesauce!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 6:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I like pie ... ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 8:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    IBM actually was involved with the nazis, so it is you who has failed.
    
    See: http://news.cnet.com/2009-1082-269157.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 12:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Godwin Law is about analogies. Saying that IBM helped the Nazis is not an analogy.
    
    You = FAIL TWICE.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
mj, 6 Apr 2010 @ 6:56pm

not really shocked
Ever hear about the little computer company that helped the Nazis systematically carry out the holocost?

http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher Weigel (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 8:17pm
  
  Re: not really shocked
  Oof. Godwin's law twice in the first 6 posts. And you, mj, don't have any excuse... it was already brought up once in the thread.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Groove Tiger (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 12:37am
    
    Re: Re: not really shocked
    Godwin's Law merely predicts the likelihood that a Nazi analogy will appear, not whether said analogy is valid or that it invalidates automatically any argument.
    
    FAIL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Designerfx (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 7:18pm

read up more
this is spun by anti-ibm crew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bigpicture, 6 Apr 2010 @ 7:20pm

Some Journalistic Research
I think if you actually do some real journalism you will find that IBM is only protecting themselves by (retaliation) because if I recall reading somewhere that this company (TurboHercules)with MS backing is pushing anti-trust issues on IBM over something proprietary on its mainframes. You know instead of competing by making better products, whine to the government to make IBM let you play with their ball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:52pm
  
  Re: Some Journalistic Research
  I think if you actually do some real journalism you will find that IBM is only protecting themselves by (retaliation) because if I recall reading somewhere that this company (TurboHercules)with MS backing is pushing anti-trust issues on IBM over something proprietary on its mainframes.
  
  So you're saying that this is really just IBM retaliating for being caught breaking the law (again)? It would seem to me that if IBM really wants to avoid antitrust charges, they should avoid engaging in the kinds of practices that lead to such charges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:10am
    
    Re: Re: Some Journalistic Research
    So ... rather than investigate and then draw conclusions, you toss all that silliness aside and just assume one side is high and mighty.
    
    Excellent
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Some Journalistic Research
      So ... rather than investigate and then draw conclusions, you toss all that silliness aside and just assume one side is high and mighty.
      
      You mean like you just did?
      
      Excellent indeed.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Journalistic Research
        I made no assumptions. My conclusion was based upon the text within your post, assuming you are the same commenter.
        What was your conclusion based upon?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 6:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some Journalistic Research
        I made no assumptions. My conclusion was based upon the text within your post, assuming you are the same commenter.
        
        Ha, now *that's* funny! (For someone who's making no assumptions, you sure seem to assume a lot!)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Some Journalistic Research
  Shouldn't they be protecting themselves by offering a sound legal defense against the antitrust suit? Even if you're right, this action still modifies their public patent stance to "we don't support using patents to sue others except when we think we need to do it." Really not very impressive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Apr 2010 @ 9:57pm

I thought Goodwin's Law was a bit more defined than that. Nowhere did I see an analogy or comparison between IBM and Nazi Germany. Honestly, you guys should reacquaint yourself with what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

If you can't get it right -- You = Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 6 Apr 2010 @ 10:40pm

Good job 'big blue' - you went from practically the uncontested leader of computing - for a brief time, to patent trolls.

Kinda 'poetic justice' - all things considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 7 Apr 2010 @ 4:54am

IBM is Threatening with Bad Patents
The IBM patents seem to be very thin patents. New instructions in a long-established architecture (vintage 1964) are, almost by definition, software functions which were used so often that it was worthwhile to move them to hardware. For example, there are a group of patents for cryptography instructions. They do things like computing a Secure Hash Algorithm digest of a block of data. The underlying cryptographic algorithms are long-published and standardized, otherwise they would be worthless. What IBM filed patents on was the use of particular named registers and bit fields to hold particular parameters.

It is obvious that if you have a group of names, and a group of numbers, you can pair them up in an arbitrary fashion, and provided you establish a one-to-one correspondence, and use the same correspondence consistently, the system will work. You can perfectly well establish your correspondence by throwing dice, or by writing the names and numbers on index cards, shuffling the two respective decks, and dealing them out. Any reasonable reading of KSR v. Teleflex is going to tend to the view that instruction sets per se are immediately obvious, and, as such, nonpatentable.

A good example of this is the Intel main processor register set and instruction space, which are notoriously cramped, and tend to squeeze things wherever there is room. The floating-point processor is of course more elegantly laid-out, but that is another story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 5:13am
  
  Re: IBM is Threatening with Bad Patents
  Good illustration as to why software patents are completely stupid. Validity of the patent is of no consequence because it is simply a club to beat your opponent with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ronald J Riley (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:44am

IBM, just another greedy transnational destroying US job creation.
IBM's goal is to fix the patent system to ensure that upstart startups by independent, academic and small business interests cannot rock IBM's boat. When they talk about Patent Reform they are really talking about class warfare and corporate dominance of everyone and everything worldwide.

IBM floods the patent system with large quantities of minor incremental inventions. One aspect of their vision for Patent Deform is First to File which will greatly aid their efforts to cloud real inventors patent rights. It will lead to patent system flooding, where the number and type of minor incremental patents will greatly increase, further bogging down the patent office.Everyone needs to remember that when IBM followed in Microsoft's footsteps as seems to always be the case nowadays they were really asking for a free pass to take others inventions.

While I think I understand why TechDIRT carries Microsoft and IBM water I do not understand why people buy their propaganda and then are surprised when the reality of how they and for that matter all the members of the Coalition for Patent Piracy & Fairness and the Coalition for 21st Patent Deform and HARMonization operate surfaces.

Ronald J. Riley,

Speaking only on my own behalf.
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 - (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 9:17am
  
  Re: IBM, just another greedy transnational destroying US job creation.
  Don't we have a first to file system now?
  
  While I think I understand why TechDIRT carries Microsoft and IBM water
  
  You really just refuse to pull your head out, don't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ronald J. McDonald, 7 Apr 2010 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re: IBM, just another greedy transnational destroying US job creation.
    I have a patent for that.
    
    Ronald J. McDonald,
    
    I am speaking only on my own behalf.
    Affiliations:
    President - www.mcdonalds.org - RJM at McUSA.org
    Executive Director - www.McInventor.org - RJM at McInvEd.org
    Senior Fellow - www.McPatentPolicy.org
    President - Alliance for American Innovation of McDonalds
    Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Mayor McCheese
    Washington, DC
    Direct (810) 555-0194 / (202) 555-1595 - 6 am to 11 pm EST.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SteelWolf (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 1:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: IBM, just another greedy transnational destroying US job creation.
      For some reason this made me laugh so hard I cried. Thanks, RJM, for bringing cheer to my day.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 10:34am
  
  Re: IBM, just another greedy transnational destroying US job creation.
  While I think I understand why TechDIRT carries Microsoft and IBM water
  
  Ronald, I understand that you like to slam me on every patent post without bothering to comprehend what we're writing, but seriously? We've never "carried Microsoft and IBM water" at all on patent issues -- and, in this very post we are slamming IBM for its practices.
  
  Do you not even read?
  
  In the meantime, since I'm surprised you still haven't answered, I need to ask again, when you will be providing us with a single shred of evidence that debunks the research we've posted about patents? I've been asking you every time you comment for about a month now, and you insist that the evidence supports you, so I'm sorta confused why you haven't posted a single bit of it yet.
  
  I mean, wouldn't that shut me up?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
staff, 7 Apr 2010 @ 7:56am

"For a while now, IBM has been positioning itself as being in favor of really fixing our broken patent system...Not so apparently."

Neither IBM nor any of the others pushing for what they call "reform" are trying to fix the patent system.

Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
Please see http://truereform.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 7 Apr 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  Patent reform is a fraud on America. It is patently un-American.
  
  Say those who stand to benefit from the current system.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2010 @ 1:49pm
  
  Re:
  I'm confused as to why you spend your time mindlessly spamming a link to a website that is massively outdated and that looks like it comes from GeoCities.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]