Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
IBM Linux Business Patents

IBM Has 'No Intention' of Using Patents Against Linux 278

Posted by michael from the cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die dept.
bendelo writes "In his keynote address on Wednesday at LinuxWorld, IBM Senior Vice President of Technology and Marketing Nick Donofrio assured the Linux nation his company would not assert its formidable patent portfolio against the Linux kernel and strongly advocated others to promise the same. This comes following an independent study by insurance firm OSRM who revealed this week that the Linux kernel might use up to 283 patented methods. This seems a smart move by the Big Blue to help counter the FUD going around." A zdnet.com.com story has a response from Bruce Perens, who basically says he wants to see it in writing. :)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Has 'No Intention' of Using Patents Against Linux More

IBM Has 'No Intention' of Using Patents Against Linux

Comments Filter:

  • In writing? Here you go (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:06AM (#9888383)
    IBM has no intentions of using patents against Linux.

    • Disadvantage (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
      That does seem to be a disadvantage to how Linux development is organized. If IBM were to put it in a written contract, who would the other party be?

      I'd like to see Linux become owned by a non-profit that's run by the community members. Or something. Give Linux a legal presence.

      • Re:Disadvantage (Score:5, Interesting)

        by phoenix.bam! ( 642635 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:27AM (#9888649)
        That would also give patent holders a target for lawsuits.

        • Re:Disadvantage (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
          It's a double-edged sword, sure. But I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

          Remember Microsoft's hypocritical FUD about "Who's liable for Linux?" How about the situations where the community can't sue for slander or libel? Or other situations where the community can't make it's voice heard in the legal system?

          The concept of a class-action suit doesn't work in this case, because Linux developers aren't financially harmed by such things. (I've never heard of a class-action libel or slander su

          • Re:Disadvantage (Score:2, Insightful)

            by AmaDaden ( 794446 )
            Remember Microsoft's hypocritical FUD about "Who's liable for Linux?" How about the situations where the community can't sue for slander or libel? Or other situations where the community can't make it's voice heard in the legal system?

            It does not matter if Linux gets slandered. The tech people out there who make the decisions and or suggestions know what's FUD and what's not. Linux is used more and more not because IBM or other company is saying how good it is but because tech people hear about it from o
      • They can publish a written declaration on their own....
        They don't need someone elses signature for that.

        Jeroen

    • Re:In writing? Here you go (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:30AM (#9888680)
      Seriously, we need it in writing ... Unisys said the same thing (in writing) about GIFs and backtracked.

      CEO's change etc. Make up of companies change. Even a written statement could easily be "reinterpreted" etc. by highly paid lawyers.

      But still .. having it in legal writing is better than nothing. And right now we have nothing.

    • Re:In writing? Here you go (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:53AM (#9888917) Journal
      Yup, they have "no intentions" - which does not mean that they will not do so in the future. While I am not saying that IBM is being sneaky and trying to lull people into a false state of safety - it should be noted that "no intentions" means just that - they are not intending on suing...which means it could change

      • Re:In writing? Here you go (Score:4, Interesting)

        by JWW ( 79176 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @10:15AM (#9889185)
        IBM is betting the farm on Linux. The big statement here is the "strongly advocated others to promise the same" part.

        I see that as a veiled threat of retailation if someone goes after Linux with patents. IBM stands to lose large amounts of money if they are unable to sell their clients Linux solutions.

        Also, I strongly believe that IBM is Linux's only home of surviving the coming patent war. IBM will have to step up to the plate to defend Linux if Microsoft goes on the patent attack. I aslo belive this is why Microsoft hasen't attacked yet.

        Another thing to look for is IBM's new processor. With this new core architecture being touted as revolutionary, they could patent the algorithms for basic processing of instructions on this thing and require every OS that uses it to pay roalties. That is a great deal of potential leverage for the future (along with being a good example of why software patents should be illegal).

        • IBM will have to step up to the plate to defend Linux if Microsoft goes on the patent attack.

          I wouldn't depend on that, though I too hope it to be the case. The thing is, is that "we" do not know of all the agreements between MS and IBM. They could and probably do have patent deals for X number of years. Basically they agree to share patents and or not sue each other. Similar to what Sun just did with MS. So it could be the case that IBM cannot use their patents to help Linux against MS patent attack

  • I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Enigma_Man ( 756516 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:07AM (#9888400) Homepage
    I mean... it's a very nice gesture and all, but if this is where we're headed, what's the point of software patents at all? Making exceptions to rules generally nullifies the power a rule has.

    -Jesse

    • Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Durzel ( 137902 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:14AM (#9888490) Homepage
      Commercially IBM doesn't have anything to fear from Linux, and in fact its current business model would suggest it has everything to gain from ensuring that it is looked upon favourably by pro-Linux parties.

      The only real difference in this case is that IBM is using its software patents as a means to paint itself as "the good guys" (take note SCO), which is every bit as commercially viable as the more traditional litigious application of software patents.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Informative)

          by darkmeridian ( 119044 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <gnauhc.mailliw>> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @10:10AM (#9889125) Homepage
          If IBM later reneged and sought to enforce these patents, I would argue promissory estoppel. If you make a promise not to pursue a legal claim, and people take harmful reliance on it, then you are barred from later bringing these claims.

          • Re:I don't understand... (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Disclaimer: I am a lawyer but I don't play one on TV.

            I doubt that promissory estoppel would apply in this case for two reasons. Firstly, IBM are making the claim to the linux community as a whole which we can assume is very large. Therefore, it can be assumed with some assurance that some part of the community are unaware of this promise and should act as though the promise was never made -- don't infringe on patents. The portion of the community who are unaware of the promise would be open to prosecution
          • IBM: 802 lb gorilla. You: Little monkey going around shouting "promissory estoppel, promissory estoppel"

    • Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:16AM (#9888517) Journal
      IBM, and most other huge engineering companies, have enormous patent portfolios (not just software patents) that they mostly carry for defensive purposes. This works since they're basically all probably infringing on each other, and the patents serve as a sort of Mutual Assured Destruction.

      That's why the real headaches come from patent suits from companies with no substantive business of their own to lose.

      • Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Enigma_Man ( 756516 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:32AM (#9888697) Homepage
        Which brings me around full circle to my main point... Software patents are being used for something other than what they were intended (companies amassing huge libraries of patents, for Mutual Assured Destruction, as you put it, or those less ethical companies that amass patents solely to lord over them, and take money from those who may tread over the boundaries). This forces us to examine the entire patent system. Is it right, fair, morally just to give a monopoly to something/someone for any amount of time, be it a hardware good, or a software program? Patents (from what I understand) originally used to be used in exactly the manner for which they were intended. It gave more benefit to R&D, because your efforts were rewarded with your short-term monopoly on the results of your R&D. It was sort of a "government sponsored" general R&D effort. But nowadays, less-ethical marketers and the suits have figured out that they can heap patent upon vague patent, and make money via the legal system, instead of through actual R&D. In the meantime, the people trying to do it the old way (reward through innovation) are getting trod upon.

        -Jesse

      • Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Funny)

        by stevesliva ( 648202 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:48AM (#9888866) Journal
        Mutual Assured Destruction
        More like Mutually assured licensing. IBM: Hey Intel, you're using our transmogrifier! Intel: But you're using our bandersnatch! All together: Let's cross-license!

        Lawyers: Phew. That'll be $167,456.

      • That's why the real headaches come from patent suits from companies with no substantive business of their own to lose.

        ...I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.

      • "IBM, and most other huge engineering companies, have enormous patent portfolios (not just software patents) that they mostly carry for defensive purposes"

        I'm trying to find a polite way to say "What are you on Crack!?!?!" but I'm coming up short. If IBM didn't invent they offensive use of software patents, they sure as hell perfected it.

        My own introduction to the realities of the patent system came in the 1980s, when my client, Sun Microsystems--then a small company--was accused by IBM of patent infr

    • Re:I don't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:19AM (#9888560) Homepage Journal
      There is no positive good in software patents. The only use they have is in killing off competition and maintaining a monopoly.

      Real innovation in software is not in ideas or "inventions" (which are easy) but in implementations. (which is of course covered by copyright law already and works well when enforced)

      Hopefully if the lawmakers see people like IBM doing things like this and in the end realise the system is broken and eventually do something about it.

      • I consider ideas to be real innovation, and they are not always easy. However, in a sense I agree with you. There is a short supply of implementations, but an abundant supply of ideas. U.S. law has not seen fit to make ideas patentable for this very reason. Since academics and others gladly publish ideas without the need for a temporary monopoly, you do not "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by granting patents.

        For this reason, abstract ideas, mathematical algorithms, and their embodime

      • "Hopefully if the lawmakers see people like IBM doing things like this and in the end realise the system is broken and eventually do something about it."

        Indulge me for a second, but aren't those lawmakers generally lawyers? Would lawyers stand to lose out or gain from a lot of loosely specified laws that require testing in court?

        Interesting concept, no?

      • Hopefully if the lawmakers see people like IBM doing things like this and in the end realise the system is broken and eventually do something about it.

        Like disallowing code copyright, and limiting it to a new, cheaper form of design patent.

        Copyright, intended for literary and artistic works, is a poor fit for anything that's supposed to actually work.

        • Re:I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @11:02AM (#9889755)
          No, you've got it backwards: patent is a bad fit; code should be copyrightable only. Copyright covers the implementation, not the algorithm, which means that plagarism is disallowed, but implementing the same idea with your own code is allowed.

          The idea of treating the code as an "object that works" breaks down when you consider that code is mathematics, that it has to perform certain functions, and it has to interoperate.

          patenting a software algorithm is like patenting "the process of traveling from point A to point B" - it would be absurd to patent that instead of a method to do so, in the same way that it would be absurd to, say, patent "a method of decoding LZW-compressed data", because if it is patented, then people can't use LZW compressed data in the same way they can't get from point A to point B -- it cripples interoperability. In this case, copyrighting an software implementation of an idea (such as LZW) is analogous to patenting a hardware method (i.e. implementation) of transportation (such as a car).

          You can't patent a mathematical idea (e.g. the LZW algorithm) any more than you can patent the idea of traveling.
    • Making exceptions to rules generally nullifies the power a rule has.

      With patents (unlike trademarks) you can enforce them as selectively as you want without the patent becoming any less binding. If they wanted they could allow everyone in the world except me use everything they had patented.

    • Why IBM had to speak out in the first place is the little storm generated by Munich putting their migration to GNU/Linux on ice.

      On one hand, they promote Linux, on the other hand, they are one of the forces pushing for software patents in Europe, which endangers FOSS in general.

      Over here in ol' Europe, many people are not exactly happy about all the pro-swpat lobbying, so that's a point where IBM is trying to calm people - none too successfully, I'd say.

      If you're European - do lobby your MEPs *aga

  • Fud? (Score:2)

    by DaHat ( 247651 )
    I thought this news was coming from Linux allies?

    It's far from FUD but a serious concern that needs to be addressed one way or another.

    • Re:Fud? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Short Circuit ( 52384 )
      It's still Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. But that doesn't make it untrue.

      The company selling Linux indemnification insurance has a stake in corporations worrying about legal risks involved in using Linux.

      The funny thing is, near as I can tell, Bruce Perens feels that Linux insurance will aid its adoption.

  • Read -all- of the statement (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pedestrian crossing ( 802349 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:10AM (#9888433) Homepage Journal
    IBM has no intention of asserting its patent portfolio against the Linux kernel, unless of course we are forced to defend ourselves (emphasis added)," said Nick Donofrio...

  • the Linux nation (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:10AM (#9888434)
    where is it, i wanna move there, geographically speaking

  • I agree with Perens (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trybywrench ( 584843 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:12AM (#9888452)
    I agree with Perens, I'd like to see it in writing as well. Everyone likes riding on the shoulders of IBM as if they're some savior. You can almost here the oss fighters telling themeselves "finally, a big guy in the corner for the little guy fighting for the cause".

    clue for the clueless, IBM is in it for IBM, if the tide ever changes and oss's destruction becomes favorable for IBM don't expect any mercy.
    • But who would IBM send the letter to? It's not like there's a "Linux Inc." entity that deals with matters concerning Linux, including litigation.
      • But who would IBM send the letter to? It's not like there's a "Linux Inc." entity that deals with matters concerning Linux, including litigation.

        How about Red Hat, Novell, SCO (!), Richard Stallman (FSF)... Of course, BSD is dying, no point in bothering with those folks...

    • You can almost here the oss fighters telling themeselves "finally, a big guy in the corner for the little guy fighting for the cause".

      clue for the clueless, IBM is in it for IBM, if the tide ever changes and oss's destruction becomes favorable for IBM don't expect any mercy.

      Um ... I think most people know this already. Don't assume that everyone else is a naive little kid who needs you to explain the harsh realities of the world.

      Right now, Microsoft vs. IBM is Hitler vs. Stalin: they're both evil, and
    • MS desperate for a way to get at Linux and now having a broader basis for their billions then just Windows, sells IBM ownership of Windows XP (or even a portion of its patents) for next to nothing. IBM suddenly has an incredibly lucrative reason to consider Linux competition. After all owning the OS that sits on a large percentage of desktops is powerful especially when you already own most of the hardware patents.

  • Makes Sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wackysootroom ( 243310 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:12AM (#9888454) Homepage
    IBM cannot assert any of it's patents against linux, since they:

    1. Contributed to the linux kernel
    2. Would look very silly and incongruent for going against something it uses to make money [ibm.com]

    This is just counter-FUD to keep IBM's linux customers satisfied.

    • Re:Makes Sense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Wudbaer ( 48473 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:16AM (#9888520) Homepage
      Welcome to the real word. What IBM might say:

      1. Contributed to the linux kernel

      "When we contributed to feature A we didn't know someone implemented feature B violating our patent xyz thus damaging our vital business interests on the field of whatever.

      2. Would look very silly and incongruent for going against something it uses to make money

      There are more than enough examples of companies doing a 180 degree turn in their business strategy, IBM itself being a brilliant example.
    • IBM licensed at least one of its patents to Linux. So you might say that they own Linux to the extent that you can't really do a significant fork on Linux because although the copyrights might be tranferable under terms of the GPL, I don't think the patent licenses are.
    • Uh why can't IBM assert its patents against linux.
      The GPL only requires you to distribute the code under the same terms, it doesn't include a mandatory patent license.

      This is the patent hole in the GPL.
    • IBM cannot assert any of it's patents against linux, since they: 1. Contributed to the linux kernel 2. Would look very silly and incongruent for going against something it uses to make money This is just counter-FUD to keep IBM's linux customers satisfied.

      Have you ever heard of SCO? Just imagine if they had any patents that they could have used. Replace "IBM" with "SCO" in your statements.

      Now I am not putting IBM on the same level as SCO, but businesses look out for themselves. There is no altruism

  • odd wording (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I can assure you we have no intention of asserting our patents against the Linux kernel, unless, of course, we are forced to defend ourselves.

    So if Linux starts to eat into AIX?? or is that if people sue them?

  • A promise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:13AM (#9888471)
    Everyone who has ever owned or worked in business knows that a promise is nothing... Business is all about contracts, IBM might have well not said anything at all. What they need to do is sign a contract with FSF or some other big open source software org.
  • Microsoft has no intention to release all source code and blow up Redmond.

    Intel has no intention of changing its slogan to "Not As Good As AMD Inside".

    RIAA has no intention of suing its customers- wait...

  • The road to hell... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SunPin ( 596554 ) <slashspam@@@cyberista...com> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:14AM (#9888481) Homepage
    is paved with good intentions.

    Karma (the real stuff) is governed by intention. IBM has generated a lot of good karma with their work with Linux. This speech seems like IBM knows that a huge shitstorm is on the horizon and they want to polish their image before it hits.

  • As good as a handshake? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Telex4 ( 265980 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:15AM (#9888503) Homepage
    Bruce Perens ... basically says he wants to see it in writing

    Well quite. What reason have we got to trust IBM? Just because their current business interests are tied in with the Linux kernel, it doesn't follow that they're never going to attack any Free Software project with patents. They even added the proviso that they won't attack the kernel "unless, of course, we are forced to defend ourselves"!

    An executive making a promise like that at a trade show is more or less meaningless. Now if they signed a legal agreement with the Free Software Foundation promising never to attack any GPL-ed project, or even just with the kernel guys, there'd be something to celebrate here.

    And of course the wider issue is that they should lobby against software patents full-stop; they damage Free and proprietary software alike, mostly affecting small and medium businesses and community projects. But of course IBM is never going to do that ;-)
  • Does that constitute a binding agreement, and if so doesn't that give Linux an essentially free license to use any IBM software patents?

    Hmmm....

    MadCow
  • I don't like the tone of this. If Linux has done something wrong and used someones prior art then come and proof it - else STFU.

    I sure there quite possibly is someones prior art in Linux but this has to be played out in courts sooner or later. I'd rather get it over a done with now - it will quite possibly show the stupidity of software patents to all.

  • I wonder if we should thank SCO... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StressGuy ( 472374 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:17AM (#9888522)
    It does seem that lately Linux is getting more and more support from some pretty large/well known companies. I kinda wonder if this was not, at least to some extent, driven by the whole SCO flap. It sorta gave everyone a common enemy and a common cause.

    Perhaps I have a penchant for the ironic, but wouldn't it be something if SCO turned out to be instrumental in bringing Linux to the mainstream?

  • Already protected by the GPL? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by The Wicked Priest ( 632846 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:18AM (#9888535)
    The GPL, which IBM has accepted by distributing Linux, seems already to prohibit them from asserting patent claims against Linux users. No?
    • IBM has so many Linux developers that pretty much nothing goes into Linux without them knowing about it first. Anyway, the GPL would only apply to code that IBM distributed. If you copy GPL'd code yourself, only the copyrights transfer under terms of the GPL, *not* implied patent rights because IBM didn't distribute your new code under GPL, just the code you copied from.
    • 1. Didn't stop SCO.
      2. As will be mentioned, GPL hasn't be validated in a US court of law. So that part might not be enforcable.
    • IBM doesn't distribute Linux. That's why they use SuSE (or Red Hat).

      Have you ever wondered why they -and all the other large,established IT vendors- don't?

      You can bet their lawyers are telling them it's for this exact reason.The patents issue.

      And in case you're wondering. No, I'm not an MS troll.

    • Re:Already protected by the GPL? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No. Probably you refer to section 7 of the GPL,
      which states that if some parts cannot be freely
      distributed (e.g. due to patent encumberance),
      then you are not allowed to distribute the
      GPL work at all. So, this means IBM couldn't
      distribute that GPL work it sues about, but it
      can very well sue, *and* continue to distribute
      other, unrelated, GPL works.

      The problem is that IBM is *not* distributing
      Linux themselves; they make their applications
      work with SuSE and RedHat, but they only
      redistribute their own code

    • Only to the customers it distributed it to. It does not protect Redhat, Gentoo, Kernel.org etc etc.
  • Or at least IBM should place some serious caveats on any promises. IBM could use it's patent portfolio to defend Linux against patent assault and we shouldn't want to lose that ability. Is someone starts asserting patent rights over Linux IBM's protfolio could be used defensively to to make counterclaims. This is Linux's biggest weakness, it holds no patents and therefore is vulnerable to claims although not being a single entity makes this impossible to enforce.

  • IBM to fight for Linux? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cornice ( 9801 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:22AM (#9888599)
    Patents in the past have been used mostly defensively. Most large companies either had mutual agreement to share patents or they went ahead and used the patented ideas of other companies knowing that the other companies used their patented ideas too. Thus the result of a lawsuit would be a wash. Now with MS and IBM building such huge patent portfolios it's getting a bit scarry for Linux and other Open Source projects. This announcement is encouraging, however. With Big Blue's huge patent portfolio (and Novell's) it could actually take on Microsoft on the behalf of Linux. In effect Big Blue would step in whenever a lawsuit was threatened and say to Microsoft, "Back off or will prevent you from using this IP which you have incorporated into X, Y and Z products." Why would they do that? Because IBM now needs Linux. Linux is one of IBM's OSs now and it has to defend it. The big question the is whether IBM could somehow hijack Linux using IP. Could IBM become the only vendor legally capable of delivering a useful version of Linux. Sure it would cripple Linux in the long run but Big Blue isn't known for being smart all the time.

  • ah yes, the statement of no intentions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nanojath ( 265940 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:22AM (#9888600) Homepage Journal
    I expect IBM will probably follow through on this, but really a statement of no intentions is basically meaningless. Corporations are ruled by the concept of shareholder value, and can and do basically justify anything legal and a lot that's not, regardless of what they've said or done in the past, under that banner. I'd advise the Linux community to keep an eye on plan B.

  • Formally enacting the terms of the Linux GPL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:23AM (#9888615) Homepage Journal
    It's time to take a release of the 2.6.x Linux kernel and get the CEOs of IBM,Sun,Novell,Redhat,Mandrake and any other organizations who which to join in, to distribute a copy of the source of the Linux kernel to each other and to Linus/OSDN for a token monetary amount. This would formally enact the terms of the GPL license [newsforge.com], which effectively ensures that upstream distributers grant an implicit license to downstream recipients to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets the Linux kernel uses under the terms of the GPL.
  • This is a good first step. As a second step, I'd like to see IBM add "...and we intend to use our patent portfolio to whack anyone who tries to use their patents against Linux."

    Long term, I'd like to see corporate open source participants enter a "patent pool." You want to use OSS? You have to waive your patent rights. Perhaps a new version of the GPL could do to patents what it has already done to copyrights.

    And of course, the true solution is that software patents should be abolished entirely. But

  • Out to lunch (Score:3)

    by GoofyBoy ( 44399 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:28AM (#9888656) Journal

    From the article:
    He cited a recent economic study that stated some 91 million new jobs would be created in the coming years, but that it is yet to be determined in which countries most of those jobs would be based.
    "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that many of the best jobs will go to those countries that create the most fertile environments for innovation," Donofrio said.

    "Innovation"? Its better to have a fertile environment for the least cost man-power.

    There are only so many high-level, innovative people are going to be required in the "coming years".

    And if the nation where these jobs are created are yet to be determined (so they are not location-based), lowest-cost will win almost everytime.

  • Just saying it doesn't cut it... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rben ( 542324 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:28AM (#9888662) Homepage

    If IBM really doesn't intend to use it's patents against Linux, IBM should take the necessary legal steps to make it impossible for it to do so, such as giving a non-revokable perpetual license to Linux to use the specified patents. If IBM is serious than this will only cost them some lawyer time to draw up the necessary papers. It will also protect them from someone else saying "Well, they didn't object to Linux using their patent, so it shouldn't apply to me either.

    IBM might currently be one of the good guys, but it wasn't so long ago that IBM was the big computer company we all loved to hate. Management and business models change. When they do, as we've seen with SCO, companies past promises get thrown out the window.

    Here's hoping that IBM makes good on this promise and sets a real example for other companies to follow.

    • That would be bad for IBM.
      They want to be able to use them if they are sued.

      Imagine Linux becomes 'THE' OS. A computer company sues IBM for patent infringement, IBM can strike back hard with the infringing parts of Linux.

      This is a very good position for them to be in, I can't imagine them giving it up lightly.
  • Kind of clever of IBM - by not attacking Linux they can probably make a case to promote their hardware running linux.

    Also, they said they won't attack the kernel, which could mean IBM hardware + linux kernel + IBM/3rd-party software is what they have in mind.
  • If this is true, then maybe they can provide a fund to provide 100 patents to the open source community. Then some of the groups will have the start of a patent profile which can then be cross licensed to IBM in a formal way to make sure they can't change their mind.

  • Prens Shouldn't Bit The Hand Feeding Him (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ausoleil ( 322752 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:33AM (#9888708) Homepage
    The F/OSS world is built largely on trust. We could debate contracts, indemnification and other legal instruments all day, but at the end of that day, Linux and other major F/OSS project circle right back to trust.

    Bruce Perens would do well to remember all that IBM has done for Linux, from a technical standpoint, to a marketing one, finally to a legal one. Had SCO chosen a smaller company, say a Red Hat, they would have had a far better chance of winning their lawsuit - because lawsuits come bak to money, and with Microsoft's filthy lucre in their vaults, SCO would have had more than Red Hat and thus a better chance in court. Instead, it was IBM that committed the resources, legal, financial and corporate, to keep Linux alive.

    That said, their intention is clear -- IBM wants Linux to succeed and to become a major player in at least the data center. It has, and with the numerous and important contributions to the kernel and other ancillary tools, Linux is now close to being the equal of the evolved UNIx's -- Solaris, for example. Without IBM, would Linux be much more than a small server or hobbyist's tool?

    IBM's word is good enough for me for now. Sure, I would love to see their promise etched in stone, but their word has been good before, we should believe it good now.

    Finally, about their reservation of their right to sue, if they need: let's not forget that IBM also makes closed source software. They should preserve the right, should they need to use it, to prevent a competitor or even business ally from contribution of proprietary code to the Linux base. After all, even though IBM is a great friend of Linux and open source generally, they also need to preserve other revenue streams. All that they said was that they would do just that, and that's not a bad thing in my view.

    Thanks, IBM, for saying you wouldn't hammer Linux with your wide portfolio. I hope it puts pressure on other companies to do the same. Microsoft would do well to follow suit -- they have benefitted from OSS whether they want to admit it or not, and they should not try to kill what has fed them either.

  • What patents should be used for IMHO (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gilesjuk ( 604902 ) <giles.jones@nospaM.zen.co.uk> on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:35AM (#9888726)
    Patents should really be used IMHO to protect a designer, inventor or R&D department from having their revolutionary ideas stolen by other companies. Having their product cloned and sold cheaper basically because the other company doesn't have the research costs.

    But what about coincidences? if two inventors come up with the same idea and one manages to get the patent before the other?

    What about prior art, it's not hard to imagine a situation at the moment where a company could look at an idea in the Linux kernel, patent it and then use that patent against Linux.
  • Patents to the left of them!
    Patents to the right of them!
    Patents in front of them!
    Litigation and lawsuits!

  • I don't recall IBM ever deploying a patent infringement before countersuing SCO. Perhaps I wasn't paying attention. The countersuit against SCO is explicitly in defense of the GPL.

  • Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mslinux ( 570958 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:47AM (#9888851)
    There is no free lunch.

    Lawyers will see to it that projects such as Linux (when used in commercial settings) don't infringe on patents. If Linux is found to be infringing, then someone will owe someone else a lot of money. It's really that simple.

    Linux is great. Free and Open Source SW is great. But once it gets outside the realm of geeks and into major corps like IBM, HP and Sun... it's a totally different ballgame. Instead of Joe Geek using Linux in his parent's basement... we now have companies such as Merryl Lynch, Diamler Chrysler and Auto Zone using it. The DOD uses it. It's turning into a big-time OS. Now, big-time lawyers will begin focusing on it more and more.

    Pretty soon, Linux as we know it won't exist. They'll be another, better, freer OS that only geeks use once again.

  • It's more than just good will... (Score:3)

    by Louis Savain ( 65843 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:48AM (#9888862) Homepage
    IBM has no intentions of using patents against Linux.

    It's more than just a good will gesture. It is also fear of possible backlash from the Linux nation, as the author put it.

  • It's not FUD, there's a clear and present danger.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by d_jedi ( 773213 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @09:50AM (#9888887)
    this seems a smart move by the Big Blue to help counter the FUD going around

    FUD, "fear, uncertainty, doubt" generally is used in the context where said fears, uncertainties, and doubts are unwarranted.

    However, in this case, the danger to Linux is very, very real. Of the 283 patents Linux potentially infringes upon (220 or so once you remove IBM's), there is a very high likelihood that at least a few of them will be completely valid, and that they'll (distros, users, developers, etc.) be sued. Just think of SCO, only with valid claims this time.

    The current "ignore the problem and hope it goes away" attitude of many of the core Linux developers (this includes "show us the code, and we'll remove it") does not help. They (developers/distros) should be proactively attempting to remove any patented code (or, alternatively, challenge in court/patent office, or get a license)..

    For hobbyists and home users, Linux's patent troubles aren't significant, but for any government of large company considering adopting Linux, it's a very big issue.

  • kernel (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zogger ( 617870 )
    All he said was the kernel. Onbe word, covers only a part of what is going on now. That leaves distro releasers/developers, and all the other aspects that go into an OS that are still an open target for future actions.

    Don't trust them. Use them as they are using "you", but never,ever trust them.

    If IBM and the other big companies that are currently "embracing open source" were SERIOUS about it, they would be using their flocks of lawyers and lobbyists to try and get the copyright and patent laws changed-an

  • Love that phrase "no intention" (Score:5, Funny)

    by ewg ( 158266 ) on Thursday August 05, 2004 @10:09AM (#9889111)

    You've got to love that phrase "no intention".

    Hearing makes me want to reply

    • I have "no intention" of striking you in the solar plexus
    • I have "no intention" of keying your auotmobile
    • I have "no intention" of dishonoring your sister

    I understand why it's used: the person talking cannot speak authoritatively for the organization.

    Still annoying, though.

  • I have to agree. Yes, software patents abuse is so ridiculous that they should be abdoned. Yes, that's lot of trash talk. BUT it is danger. I don't understand attacks to Bruce Perens - he pointed out DANGER. And it IS danger. Don't matter how do you try to spin it. Oh, yeah, he is making business of it. BUT he is not HIDING problem.

    And it is NOT FUD.

    So, there is a masterplan. Stop software patents ASAP. There's no common good for them, only harm. Don't like it? Well, it is how it is. You can't choose nice
  • IBM Senior Vice President of Technology and Marketing Nick Donofrio assured the Linux nation his company would not assert its formidable patent portfolio against the Linux kernel and strongly advocated others to promise the same.

    I'm sorry but without sounding trollish - big whoops.

    This doesn't mean a thing. Just because they say they won't doesn't mean that they actually won't.

    After all, what is to stop IBM getting a new Vice President of Technology and Marketing who decides to take the company in a

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close