IBM Patents Method For Paying Open Source Workers 426
Frequanaut writes "Oh, the bitter, bitter irony. According to The Inquirer, in a strange move, IBM has patented a method for paying open source volunteers.
By the way, if the future of software development is open source, how will anyone get paid when only IBM can do it?" The Inquirer quizzically notes, with regard to this patent: "It may be an ingenious way of paying open source developers and volunteers, Big Blue, but can it really be described as an invention?"
Patents are bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Defensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
I said hope.
The Framers Had It Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't have an issue with IBM or any other number of companies applying for patents in principle. After all, a lot of that is what I would call "defensive patents" which I have a whole separate issue with and won't go into here.
I do have one major problem with a lot of the patents I've been seeing lately on "business processes". I believe that the Founding Fathers had a basic idea about patents:
It was for inventions. Something you could build and use. If you couldn't build it, then details blueprints on how the "repeater rifle" was going to look at the end or "the automatic banana peeler".
Not a wish or a dream or some vague concept on how something is going to work, or a method of how to go from A to B by sticking your thumb up your ass turning in a circle and singing "I can fly". Not for the genetic code of a field mouse that Nature kicked up and you discovered the genetic sequence - though you could probably patent the gel used to discover the genetic markers. That's fair game.
Inventions. An actual item that can be built in the real world. And it seems that for whatever reason, our members of congress or the senate or whichever slick son of a bitch (or daughter, whatever) who seems to exist only to bend over and get reamed by the latest lobbyist promising that patenting "business procedures is good for the economy!" is not doing their job by the Founding Fathers.
Who, if they saw what patents are being used for today, would probably use a big old switch on the idiots allowing patents like this to go through. Lord knows, they didn't invent the "willow tree supple butt-swacker switch", but they probably knew how to use it when people acted like asses.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Could be a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I just think there might be a chance IBM has some pure intentions here.
Re:Patents help. (Score:5, Insightful)
Overall, we must admit no such thing -- when it comes to "business method" patents, anyway. I'm all for patenting actual, physical, mechanical inventions; and I'm willing to let chemical (including drug) patents slide by on the edges. But patenting ways of doing things (which includes forms of payment and also
Re:IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defensive? (Score:4, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
You're unfamiliar with IBM patenting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Framers Had It Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Computers that fit a specific task fall in this category. By extension, so does software (which do real world tasks). That is essentially why I'm not totally against software patents. As long as they solve real world problems in a non-obvious way, they are fair game.
Re:Note to Recent Grads (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
Too, if you're a hardware vendor, stuff like this and OSDL make a truckload of sense.
Particularly if you have received a Massive Stab wound in your back Over Something, Too.
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Note to Recent Grads (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes swallowing your pride is the best thing to do in the long term.
Re:Could be a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
And what makes you think that IBM won't do the same thing? Just because they support open source now, doesn't mean they always will. Like that warning about the stock market...Past performance is no guarantee(sp)...
Re:heh (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple
RedHat
TurboLinux
Yellowdog
SuSE
Re:The Framers Had It Right (Score:1, Insightful)
Furthermore the idea of a patent is public disclosure of the 'invention' (and I use the term loosely thanks to the cretins at the USTPO), so where is source code for software patents? The patent applications are written in obfuscated lawyerspeak and are complete nonsense to the majority of the people 'skilled in the art'.
Method Patent and IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM may be doing us a favor by getting it. This blocks hostile companies from aquiring them. The real question is what will IBM do with them. While I have no doubt that IBM will not use them against us today, if they have a CEO change, they could elect to hit us with them. Hopefully, IBM will turn them over to EFF or GNU.
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
no point in applying for a patent (Score:3, Insightful)
This way, the patent is recorded at the PTO, and becomes a readily visible part of the prior art. How many 'obviously done before' things have been reported on
That said, I have no idea whatsoever what IBM's motives are in seeking this patent.
Re:The Framers Had It Right (Score:1, Insightful)
With embedded devices and purpose built hardware there is arguably some room for debate. Increasingly such devices are built using generic programmable chips. It's impossible to draw a firm line therefore "NO SOFTWARE PATENTS" seems like the only sensiable conclusion, to me anyway.
Re:I don't see the problem (Score:2, Insightful)
A good example is the Xerox machine. The method of which it was patented, you could NOT USE THE PROCESS in which this machine made copies. Another is Poloroid's Instant Developing Film. These companies made lots of money, and rightfully so, by innovation of a process.
Hmm. (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt we will see these patents used unless IBM needs to countersue someone on a relevant issue. The situation still bears watching in case I'm wrong, but I wouldn't really worry. IBM has an incredible number of patents that they could abuse, but don't.
Re:IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
If IBM uses this system, didnt patent it, they could be screwed if someone else "invents" it two years from now and sues IBM over it. This way, that case begins and ends with the words "Case Dismissed". A patent gives you a crystal clear prior art defense.
Not naive at all (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe IBM intends to be sticky about licensing this patent. It would alienate the very people they want to work with. And even if you think Software Patents are Evil, Unconstitutional, and Contrary to Natural Law, the fact remains that the courts accept them. As long as that state of affairs persists, you can't fault people for filing patents, only misusing the patents once they're obtained.
Related topic: I think I'm beginning to understand IBM's open-source strategy. They have the obvious reasons for wanting to break away from Microsoft. But they also have one other incentive: Microsoft products tend to be Pentium specific. Open source software tends to be processor agnostic. And guess who makes the biggest competitor to the Pentium? Right [ibm.com]!
Re:IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
They patented a method of attracting and paying volunteers for their effort while providing incentive for others to volunteer and contribute to an open source project.
Re:Note to Recent Grads (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen many, many people get jobs they thought would be their dream jobs, only to become quickly disillusioned and depressed when the job did not live up to the high standards they had set for it in their own mind.
Anyway, congratulations on the new job, and I hope it ends up being as good as you hope.
Re:IBM (Score:1, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmmm . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't understand your statement. Perhaps to you open source is about writing software simply because you love writing code but that certainly isn't the founding principal that got this ball rolling. Open Source is about freedom It is about the freedom to do what you want with your code (even sell it or be paid to write it) and it is about your customers freedom to use it as they need or see fit. Not one of the OSS licenses even hints that the software should be free -- even idealy. In fact, the GPL actually addresses the "do I have to give my software away" because the authors knew it would come up. The answer? No, you don't.
To be totally honest here I think the current movement of people who demand OSS be free and that OSS developers don't get paid or it's not "true OSS". Bull! There is nothing at all corrupt or wrong about making money off of OSS code. How can we rave about "OSS is about freedom" and then complain when someone excercises that freedom in a way we don't like BUT is in no way incompatible? We can't.