Slashdot Log In
IBM Seeking 'Patent-Protection-Racket' Patent
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Oct 20, 2007 08:09 AM
from the any-reason-to-bust-kneecaps dept.
from the any-reason-to-bust-kneecaps dept.
theodp writes "Wikipedia defines a protection racket as an extortion scheme whereby a powerful non-governmental organization coerces businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase the organization's 'protection' services against various external threats. Compare this to IBM's just-published patent application for 'Extracting Value from a Portfolio of Assets', which describes a process by which 'very large corporations' impress upon smaller businesses that paying for 'the protection of a large defensive patent portfolio' would be 'a prudent business decision' for them to make, 'just like purchasing a fire insurance policy.' Sounds like Fat Tony's been to Law School, eh? Time for IBM to put-their-money-where-their-patent-reform-mouth-is and deep-six this business method patent claim!"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
IBM Seeking 'Patent-Protection-Racket' Patent
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 169 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I don't suppose anyone has considered (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, there's the prior art. (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps this is a means to stop the practice (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I'd tend to think this is more their purpose, than to become the master bully.
1-click again? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why dispose of it? (Score:2)
Such a patent, should it be granted, could become a perfect show-stopper for Microsoft's patent FUD and could also wipe out patent trolls as a side effect.
Patenting patent racketeering = A Good Thing(TM)?
Prior art (Score:2)
(http://www.apaddedcell.com/)
I think Steve Ballmer already has prior art [slashdot.org] on this method.
Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it ought to be allowed or not is a different question, but it still brings tears to my eyes.
Wow, It's Real (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://bumpylight.com/ | Last Journal: Friday January 09 2004, @12:36AM)
At first, I thought this was a joke from The Onion [theonion.com], but holy guano, Batman! It's for real!
I'm not particularly upset, though. I.B.M. already is known to systematically exploit their huge patent portfolio, as would be expected by their shareholders, but I've not heard of them doing so, recently at least, in an offensive manner. I.B.M. has been trying hard, for business reasons, to be a "good citizen". If anyone has to have such a patent, best that it be them. If nothing else, it'll put a bit of a damper on the true patent trolls.
Good for small businesses? (Score:5, Informative)
Being able to buy a slice of protection from IBM would eliminate one of the biggest risks that small developers face. Of course, small companies can't pay millions of dollars in legal fees. IBM will have to offer to defend their clients in court in order to make this work.
Deep Six (Score:5, Informative)
That bastion of knowledge, The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy [bartleby.com], says this:
This phrase is derived from the noun "deep six," meaning burial at sea and referring to the depth of water necessary for such a burial. The term was later used as slang for a grave (customarily six feet underground) and, by extension, as a verb meaning "to kill."
If this is granted... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Tuesday July 11 2006, @04:01AM)
Then let the fun begin.
Wow, IBM showing their since of humor... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
How many joke have been writing about patenting the patent process?
Well looks like a very large patent portfoilo company has money to toss at such a joke..
Kudos to IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.jenom.com/)
It a rather elegant, subtle, and expensive way of inviting said patent trolls to "kiss my hairy ass". hehe
go go IBM
I hope this patent is granted (Score:1)
Further, I hope IBM aggressively enforces it.
Just imagine a set of deep pockets like IBM going around suing every large firm that aggressively impresses upon smaller firms that it would be prudent to pay for 'the protection of a large defensive patent portfolio.'
Would that not make the world a better place?
Attempting to translate the claims to English (Score:5, Informative)
So a company has a pool of assets. It gives somebody else a right to in the future, after some event has occurred, gain one or more of those assets. Some of the assets may have left the pool by the time they do this. Basically, we're talking about the standard financial instrument known as an "option", but over any of a pool of assets rather over a specific asset.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the privilege is defined in a floating privilege agreement between the first and second parties, the floating privilege agreement having a term and specifying the predetermined event and the type of interest to be conveyed to the second party upon execution of the privilege.
The right can be time limited, and constrained to a certain kind of selection of assets.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein a number of assets in which the second party receives an interest is limited based on the floating privilege agreement.
The selection can be the number of assets acquired.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the assets are intellectual property assets.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the intellectual property assets are patents.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the intellectual property assets are copyrights.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the intellectual property assets are trade secrets.
Obvious.
8. The method of claim 2, wherein the assets include intellectual property assets selected from the group consisting of patents, copyrights and trade secrets.
But it doesn't have to be only IP. There can be other stuff as well.
9. The method of claim 4, wherein the privilege is exercised by the first party transferring rights in one or more of the assets in the dynamic pool of assets to the second party.
Pretty obvious, really.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the transfer is by assignment.
11. The method of claim 9, wherein the transfer is by license.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the license is an exclusive license.
OK, so there are multiple ways of transferring the rights.
13. The method of claim 4, wherein an occurrence of the predetermined event is a trigger event defined in the floating privilege agreement.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the trigger event is a litigation-related event.
15. The method of claim 13 [sic, should clearly be 14], wherein the litigation-related event is a filing of a complaint against the second party.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the complaint against the second party alleges that the second party infringes an intellectual property asset of a third party.
Now we get to the meat of the patent. This is not a patent on patent-trolling, it's a patent on a mechanism for defending against patent trolling. What they're patenting is a legal agreement that says "if you get sued for patent infringement, we'll grant you a patent license for one of our patents so you can smite the bastards".
17. The method of claim 13, wherein exercising the privilege comprises the second party selecting an asset from the dynamic pool of assets in response to occurrence of the trigger event.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein exercising the privilege further comprises the first party qualifying the selected asset for transfer to the second party to ensure the selected asset is appropriate for use by the second party f
you can patent something like that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Glad IBM is getting this.... (Score:1)
Funny, +5 (Score:2)
Has IBM ever abused it's patent/copyright arsenal? (Score:2)
Msft's err, "business partners" : scox and acacia, have actually gone as far as filing lawsuits, apparently on msft's behest. Scox has sued Autozone, Chysler, IBM, and Novell.
How about IBM? I don't remember IBM constantly threating everybody with harassment lawsuits. IBM certainly has the patents - and unlike msft, those patents are for real.
So, I don't know, but maybe this is a defensive move on IBM's part?
Or their lawyers have a sense of humor (Score:3, Interesting)
I told them they shoiuld have .... (Score:2)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
See application filing date...
I think its a good idea for now (Score:2)
The issue is that this will likely cost IBM a great deal of money in both litigation and administration. Unfortunately the facts are that the extortion is already taking place and its by the legal community.
We might note that patent trolls often come from the legal community.
I think this will serve to highlight the problems.
Prior Art?!?!? (Score:1)
Aren't there several instances which would demonstrate prior art [wikipedia.org]?
Not "non-governmental" (Score:2)
(http://www.threesquirrels.com/)
kinda makes a hoodlum think... (Score:1)
(http://www.subgenius.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday April 16 2003, @05:39PM)
Selling home and family "insurance" to IBM bigwigs who actually have money is a prudent business move.
I predict this will be more common business trend in the '10's.Probably for government officials too.(no,wait they already deal with hoodlums under a different business model,LOL)
Umm...this is bad how? (Score:1)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 02 2003, @02:21AM)
Everybody wins! (prior art not withstanding...)
Prior art can be found on Slashdot (Score:2)
Come on - every time Slashdot posts an article on a patent troll, some wag suggests taking out a business model patent on patent trolling - its the law!
Slashdot's Prior Art (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31 2005, @01:48PM)
Most times any patent frivolity is discussed on Slashdot, there are any number of "business method designs" for patenting patents, or patenting extortive intellectual property methods or business models. Many in the handy format of " 1. XXX / 2. YYY / 3. ZZZ / 4. ??? / 5. PROFIT!!! [google.com] "
Though this post would make a great joke, the patent crusader Homer Simpson [google.com] would say " It's funny because it's true. [google.com] ©.
Vercoti Brothers Patent Protection Agency (Score:2, Funny)
It'd be a real shame if
My brother and I have got a little proposition for you.
We can guarantee you that not a single patent will get done over for fifteen hundos a week.
This is the "stupid patent" patent... (Score:2)
(http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:53PM)
You know the joke, you patent the process of patenting obvious things, and then none of the patent trolls could operate unless you licensed them to. Which, of course, you wouldn't.
The question is, is IBM going to use this as a defensive patent against patent trolls, or try and get into the patent troll business directly?
Tool against M$? (Score:1)
Perhaps IBM is doing this as a tool against Microsoft and their friends. Wouldn't it be cool for IBM to claim patent infringement against MS when they use that tactic against someone?
I'll join the anti-patent trolls on THIS one... (Score:2)
(http://www.brianewart.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday June 18 2003, @04:23PM)
My main problem with this... (Score:2)
A case for prior art (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I LOVE IT (Score:2)
(http://naenary.com/ | Last Journal: Friday January 02 2004, @03:57PM)
Check! And checkmate in three... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday October 26, @01:12AM)
This is a wonderful, delightful piece of work!
If this patent is to be successfully contested on the basis of prior art, some corporation is going to have to go public with the details of its patent protection racket. That company would be exposing itself to a lot of nasty business risks (possibly RICO, possibly anti-trust measures, more probably loss of sales and market cap, very definitely some image problems). I doubt that there are very many CEOs who would like the risk/benefit ratio of such a plan, especially as this kind of thing could break their personal career even if it is successful in blocking the patent.
If IBM is awarded the patent, it can use it to publicly expose the backroom details of the MS - SCO deal, the MS - Novell deal, and similar deals where there is good cause to suspect that some form of patent protection was involved. Through lawsuit and discovery, the secret clauses in those contracts would become public. This would stifle a lot of those kinds of activities, which would be a Good Thing for anyone favoring competition of products based on their technical merit.
IBM could also put the patent in the Linux patent protection pool. I cannot see anything negative for FOSS coming out of that.
But basically I see this patent as a way of demonstrating just how absurd the entire business model patent structure is.
Go IBM!
What happens in Las Vegas ....... (Score:1)
What happens in the meeting room should stay in the meeting room (99% of the time).
Looks like this one got out
We can only hope! (Score:2, Insightful)
Consider the potential outcomes, it just has to bring a smile to your face!
And hey, maybe the absurdity of the patent, coupled with its devastating use against a few notorious patent trolls, would wake someone in power up to the need for a return to the protections for IP the Founding Fathers intended. Instead of the obscene mega-business pandering mess we have now.
Nah (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday July 04 2003, @08:23AM)
Sounds like Fat Tony's been to Law School, eh?
Nah. Me [slashdot.org] and Fat Tony go waaay back, and that gnocchi-eating paisan couldn't fit through the door of law school, much less graduate from one. If youse'a askin' me, my money's on Benny the Brain.
I have two words for you... (Score:2)
(http://scoxq.com/rajah)
Funny thing is who will oppose them (Score:2)
(http://www.devcentre.org/)
Brilliant (Score:1)
There are (at least) two ways IBM can apply such a meta-patent. (1) They can use it to become the only legally permitted patent troll in the United States. (2) They can use it to sue existing patent trolls out of business on the grounds that those trolls are violating IBM's patent on patent trolling.
I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. Time will tell.
Classy (Score:1)
(http://tomeklof.googlepages.com/)
You can patent racketeering? (Score:2)
CORRECTION- Fat Tony Runs the Law School (Score:1)
(http://www.rentwars.com/)
As for corporate racketeering, the RICO* statutes should clearly ban these sort of practices, but the courts have created bogus exceptions for corporations involved in racketeering. A prime example is the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's rule providing complete protection for corporate-involved racketeering. A unanimous** Supreme Court overruled it in Kushner Promotion, Ltd. v. King, 533 U.S. 158 (2001), but Fat Tony runs things around here and RICO-proof corporations are still the law around here, just a tad more discretely.
*Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
** Yes all nine Justices found the excuse for a corporate exception to fraud racketeering ridiculous and unsupported.
I Love... (Score:1)
I love how it has to be specified that it is a non-governmental organization doing the racketeering. I guess when the government does it, its just plain theft via the threat of physical violence. Or taxes. Whichever you prefer.
...just like purchasing a fire insurance policy... (Score:1)
Interesting parallel (Score:2)
Going back to the original quote:
"...an extortion scheme whereby a powerful non-governmental organization coerces businesses to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase the organization's 'protection' services against various external threats"
Applying this definition to a Patent-Protection plan certainly seems appropriate. It sounds like a scheme that only lawyers could think up.
But now that I'm thinking of "extortion" in broader terms like this, it made me consider other situations. When I read the quote in the first place it made me immediately think of paying large network infrastructure companies extra money in order to not have latency intentionally imposed on my packets. So does the parallel hold here too? Is network neutrality a fight against extortion? Should we be petitioning for the appropriate application of the RICO act?
Of course Big Blue won't sue them... (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Saturday November 03, @10:54PM)
IBM seems to get that technical support is a better way to make money than bundling software.