IBM Patents Method For Paying Open Source Workers

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?"

IBM

[Ianoo]

I'd like to think that IBM won't enforce this patent to disrupt paid open source development because they now realise how important Linux, GNU, X, Gnome and KDE are to their business model. However, I suspect I'm just being naieve.

One thing to bear in mind...

[TWX]

is that IBM has lots of patents on lots of things that they don't normally enforce. Lots of memory control and process control concepts are covered by their patents, yet they don't enforce them. SCO is giving them a reason to, though, as a defensive counterattack.

It might be possible that IBM is patenting this so that no one else *cough*SCO*Microsoft*cough* gets to the idea first. This is somewhat unlikely, but not impossible. Hopefully IBM's open source concepts will remain god for the public.

Open-source patent license needed!

[LoonXTall]

Virtually nobody is writing open-source software to place it in the public domain. Rather, much of it is licensed under the GNU GPL, which embraces the property rights of copyright and uses them to ensure that the code remains open. I propose a parallel license for patents: a perpetual, irrevocable license for open-source software[1] to implement, use, and improve the patented concepts and inventions free of charge.

If we patent our patentable work, instead of merely copyrighting our code, we can build a defensive patent portfolio. This would give us some leverage against patent infringement suits, as well as being good business sense in the current climate.

What is the harm in not adopting such a license? Besides the possibility of open-source ultimately being crushed by patents, there is the risk of our work becoming a de facto Microsoft R&D lab. We are already seeing that future with XUL (or libglade) and Microsoft's XAML.

In addition, this license would give Red Hat a graceful way to keep their promise [redhat.com] that they will never charge licensing fees on their patents.

And now, IBM has patented something very much like the Open Source model itself. Can we afford to continue ignoring patents? IBM was once greatly despised, and there is nothing to say that if Microsoft falls, they won't become a new tyrant.

Of course, open-source developers would still need to apply and pay for the patent, but it is much cheaper to apply than retroactively fight one.

[1] Rather than "open-source software", the patent license would have to define which software licenses are considered open source. If the patent license relies on an external definition like "OSI-approved", then the OSI could change the license after the fact by changing their approvals. Since the proposed license is irrevocable, the patent couldn't be withdrawn from it if OSI added a license the patent-holder objected to.

(This post is based on the ideas of someone else. I'll drop them a line so they can take credit or elaborate as they see fit.)

sounds exactly like topcoder

[kesteloot]

This is exactly how topcoder pays people for developing components, except the software isn't open source. http://www.topcoder.com/?&t=development&c=inde x

Re:Note to Recent Grads

[fine09]

Yup, Funny thing is that I was a recent Computer Science Grad that was working at Wendy's up until this week. Sometimes you have to swallow your pride to pay the bills until you find your place. To end on a good note, I am now just starting my dream job (computer programmer) at a fun and interesting company

IBM's patent culture

[93 Escort Wagon]

There was an interesting article in last week's Network World that described IBM's "domination" in the world of patents. Basically IBM makes it very worthwhile for their employees to come up with patentable ideas - they are rewarded with pay raises, bonuses, and the like. The idea is to foster and encourage innovation within the company.

Given this, it would not be unreasonable to assume that some individual within IBM saw this as an opportunity to play the wheel for some extra dough. It's not the only possible explanation - we've seen plenty of businesses overextend the US Patent Office before - but it certainly is a reasonable hypothesis.

The fault: The IBM patent reward system

[Anonymous Coward]

Many companies, but especially IBM have "Patent Reward Systems". Essentially, they pay folks $1000 for Patent Applications, and the lawyers will try to send it as many as they can...after all, it's their job to do so. The more patents you write, the more money you get for successive patents, and having patents is the only good way to get to the "Distinguished Engineer" level. All in all, it encourages engineers to generate SPAM for the USPTO rather than innovative, but I knew numerous folks at IBM that would play the system.

Re:IBM

[Aumaden]

This is almost certainly a "defensive" patent. Simply by obtaining the patent IBM prevents anyone else from hamstringing the development community.

Preventing OSD would be very much against IBM's best interests.
However...

Imagine if SCO owned this patent. They would be doing their best to extort anyone trying to pay open source developers.

Re:IBM

[Carnage4Life]

And they hold zillions which they do enforce. You should read up on IBM and Software Patents [ffii.org] sometime. A number of software companies could learn a thing or two about monetizing their intellectual property from IBM [if that was their thing].

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Defensive?

[hipster_doofus]

...IBM is renowned for patenting more things every year than you can shake a stick at...

Try shaking a stick at 3415 preliminary patents [uspto.gov] in 2003 alone - nearly double their nearest competitor! IBM has been #1 in patents for 11 consecutive years now.

Chew on that, SCO :-)

Re:The fault: The IBM patent reward system

[Elektroschock]

I suggest you to read the report of the US fderal trade commission. Or support FFII UK [ffii.org.uk] or the FFII Call for Action II.

There will be several swpat conferences and lobby actions next year.

We have to join forces and get rid of the inefficient software-patent system. In Europe it is still semi-legal. Let's support the EU Parliament's directive against the united scum in the national DOJs.

"Even to IBM most patents are not a cash cow. A small number of their patents bring in a lot of money, but most of them don't bring in any money."
Arnoud Engelfriet, NL patent attorney

escalation

[theCat]

If the IBM patent really is defensive, and if the threat is present and not future, then we might be on the leading edge of a ramp up in defensive/offensive patents. How about these patents we'd all like to see?

A patent on a method to manage outsourced software development.

A patent on a method to handle consumer RMAs using web services to coordinate agents.

A patent on a method to manage software development via timelines and milestones using an online collaborative system.

A patent on a method to...

I think you get the point. If the way we work is now subject to patent, just like the products of our work, then there is very little that cannot be patented. Either the madness will now stop, or the future of our industry is going to be absolutely insane.

Re:One thing to bear in mind...

[Elektroschock]

TWZ wrote :"It might be possible that IBM is patenting this so that no one else *cough*SCO*Microsoft*cough* gets to the idea first."

???? Huuuuuaaaaahaaaaaahahahahaha!

IBM's lobby organisations fight hard for the reduction of limits to software patentability in Europe. Fritz Teufel, Eicta, Bitkom ... that's IBM action.

IBM's committment to Open Source is janus head style.

Bruce Perens recently complained about IBM: "And yet, a pro-software patent agenda is being pursued by some of the largest and best partners we have in the Linux industry. IBM stands out in this regard. Obviously, IBM has done a lot for our community, and the very fact that IBM endorses our systems and distributes them so well to our many customers has helped us gain the economic significance that gets us taken seriously by standards organizations and legislators. At the same time, we have frequently found IBM taking an adversary position, one harmful to the open source developers, in patent policy discussions at standards organizations, and at governments here and abroad. There's no question that IBM is one of the major parties supporting the effort to expand software patenting to Europe. So we're at the point, in the progress of open source, where we realize that we have very good friends who can still hurt us in significant ways if we don't push back against them. We must push back, or we will simply not survive the upcoming legal onslaught."

Re:Wow.

[k98sven]

The "public domain" refers to copyrights. As far as I'm aware, there is no similiar concept for patents, except for just agreeing to not enforce it (which, of course, is no protection, since you can change your mind any time you want).

True. But what you can do is sign over the patent to someone who can be trusted never to enforce it.. The FSF for example.

IBM has in fact already done so on occasion. They contributed code to linux which was covered by one of their patents, when this was pointed out IBM solve the issue by signing the patent over to Linus Torvalds.

Re:heh

[Aneurysm9]

Remember, you can only infringe a patent if you practice all of the elements of a claim in the patent. If you actually read the patent, and not the spin from non-lawyers with a bone to pick, you will see that this in no way would hamper open source development. It only covers a particular method of developing software (not necessarily OSS) and providing for payment to outside developers. As I noted someone mention earlier, the patent requires that two intent-to-submit notices be received to prevent re-organization of the software. It would seem that an easy way to get around the patent would be to require only one.* *Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (even if I hand disclaimers out like candy like one) and nothing I say is intended to be, and should not be, taken as legal advice. If you are concerned about infringing a patent, contact a patent attorney.

Re:Wow.

[terrymr]

Volvo (If I remember correctly) patented the three point seatbelt that's in almost every car ... they then licenses it for free to every car manufacturer.

Are "defensive patents" a good rationale?

[An Onerous Coward]

Okay, let's assume for the sake of argument what many have claimed: that the patent is only going to be used for defensive purposes. There are two orthogonal interests that might be protected. First, IBM's interests. Second, the interests of open source developers at large.

Now, I think it's pretty safe to say that IBM isn't going to go after anyone just for using some variant on their reward system. But say you're a company that does some open source work as a (not necessarily large) part of its business. Now say you get into it with IBM's Demon Lawyer Horde over some unrelated patent dispute. IBM might not hesitate to use this as leverage.

So I don't buy the "defensive use only" defense, even if that is IBM's true intent. It's not a guarantee that it will always be to the benefit of OSS developers. I would be happy to see a universal, royalty-free license to any and all who desired it.

As previous posters have noted, IBM rewards people for coming up with patents, so maybe somebody is simply padding their in-house resume.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and I think there have been other things like that. In so doing, manufacturers can boost uptake of a new standard so everyone wins. I think Philips did this in the 60s with the comapct cassette tape, for example.

I don't know if IBM will freely licence this patent, but if they do it is one way of solving a problem that has bugged me for ages, because I happen to think that open source programmers should get some monetary reward for their work, in proportion to their contribution. I would have earned zero so far (still playing with a few ideas...) whereas Linus and most of the other well-known names would be doing quite nicely, smaller contributors would earn a bit of extra cash, and that is how it should be. I don't mind paying a fair price for my software, I just object to paying one penny to a Convicted Monopolist Scumbag, aka Sir Bill.