Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
IBM Patents

IBM Opens Their Patent Portfolio to Open Source 653

kfiller writes "IBM announced that over 500 of their currently held software patents will be freely available to use for those who are working on open source projects (NY Times, free registration required), with the hope that more companies will do the same. More information is available at SourceLicense."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Opens Their Patent Portfolio to Open Source

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dolo666 ( 195584 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:25AM (#11318095) Journal
    IBM Opens Their Patent Portfolio to Open Source That does it. I'm buying a crapload of IBM stock. One good decision after another... but somehow I feel strange in doing so. How many of you remember when IBM were the bad guys?
    • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:31AM (#11318148)
      How many of you remember when IBM were the bad guys?
      Weren't they the bad guys last week? I can never keep up.
    • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Interesting)

      I don't remember them being bad guys; it was before my time, and probably most others. Linux commercials during NFL games, opening their patent portfolio. Just too much to resist. But, here's the funny thing, what do they actually produce in terms of software? The eclipse project, Websphere, and Lotus Notes? Why do they feel like a has-been? (they aren't, but they feel like KMart or something)
      • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by femto ( 459605 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:31AM (#11318489) Homepage
        > Why do they feel like a has-been?

        Because IBM seems to have decided the future is in software services, not writing software. Let the geeks write the software then IBM will make a pile of money telling companies what software they need, putting all the bits together, installing it then maintaining it.

        • what about red hat (Score:3, Insightful)

          by acomj ( 20611 )
          Red hat just takes linux, adds a little here, a tweak there, some tech support and ta-da Red Hat linux 699$ (or some $$$).

          And Suse and Mandrake....

          its the same thing. I've been in software a while. Writeing code is fairly cheap and fast. Debug/ test Maintenance and Support cost $$.
    • Re:Sweet! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by seanadams.com ( 463190 ) * on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:43AM (#11318233) Homepage
      I'm buying a crapload of IBM stock.

      Me too. It is surprising and inspiring to see IBM doing this.

      Open source today is like bell bottoms in 1950. It wasn't cool just yet.

      IBM is way ahead of the other heavyweights in recognizing a trend and getting ready to capitalize on it.

      My business [slimdevices.com] is deeply involved in open source. When I explain our strategy to people such as our silicon vendors, they chuckle, and I'm sure they look at me like some kind of hippie pinko, and not the greedy capitalist that I'm proud to be. But it's getting easier - with guys like IBM backing OSS, we can look forward to a technology landscape where people are making money AND advancing technology instead of just ripping each other off.
      • Re:Sweet! (Score:3, Funny)

        by Alsee ( 515537 )
        Dude, saying open source is like bell bottoms is not a GoodThing.

        -
  • Reg-free sites (Score:4, Informative)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:25AM (#11318098) Homepage Journal

    If you're afraid of registering at NYTimes.com, you can look at any of several other sites that have picked up the story [google.com].

  • Wow! (Score:5, Funny)

    by MrRTFM ( 740877 ) * on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:25AM (#11318100) Journal
    Wow - this is the first story that has made me get a subscription to New York Times.

    Good stuff, IBM!! *

    * Google - please retract this post from the archives in 12 years when IBM turns into the new evil corporation again

  • If you are just going to give it away, why even bother with the whole process of patenting something?
    • by wmspringer ( 569211 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:27AM (#11318122) Homepage Journal
      A) These things may have been patented before they decided to do this

      B) They don't have to worry about someone else patenting them

      C) They're only opening them up for open-source projects, meaning IBM projects can use them and open-source projects can use them, but IBM's closed-source competitors can't.
      • Good point on C, I didn't think of that :)
      • They're only opening [their software patents] up for open-source projects, meaning IBM projects can use them and open-source projects can use them, but IBM's closed-source competitors can't.
        Hopefully, this will finally prove to the "all software patents are evil" crowd that software patents are not inherently evil: it's just how they're sometimes unfortunately used.
    • To protect the people who use the patented work from entities who might have registered the patents and enforced them?
    • Considering that the patent office doesn't search for prior art any more, this at least gives you ammo to legally challenge when somebody else patents it too.
    • IBM's strategy (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tepples ( 727027 ) <tepplesNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:30AM (#11318140) Homepage Journal

      IBM's tactic: Apply for U.S. patents on methods used in software and then license them royalty-free for use in free software.

      IBM's possible strategies behind the tactic:

      • Encourage development of free software for IBM hardware and service platforms.
      • Fund development of free software with royalties collected from publishers of proprietary software using the methods in question.
      • Protect free software from patent suits by retaliating against those who use patents against IBM or against free software.
      • Re:IBM's strategy (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Jameth ( 664111 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:51AM (#11318289)
        Other Possible Strategy:

        Make it more difficult for those who only make software to compete with open-source, moving the software realm further to being primarily valuable to solutions companies, of which they are the most successful.
    • Because if it is licensed only for OSS projects, then MS and the like cannot use them without opening up their source code.

      AFAIK, IBM makes most of their money in hardware and support, and helping OSS is an advantage to them. They don't get much of an advantage by helping other companied become richer. So they don't help them.
    • You're going to get a crapflood of "in case someone else tries to" replies. The fact is that you can register an invention with the USPTO without going through the patent application process (basically a patent application without the necessity of proving it is novel or non-obvious over prior art) for a smaller fee and less stringent requirements.

      My point is that (to those who know more than three things about the patent system) this is a valid question. My best guess is that IBM feels that the more stri

    • They are giving them to FOSS, not to any commercial company that wants to use them. They'll keep selling licenses.
    • by Chuck Chunder ( 21021 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:12AM (#11318386) Journal
      The way the licence is worded [ibm.com] (as I understand it anyway) they help protect IBM and other Open Source software. If you use "Open Source software A" with one of IBMs patents in it and decide to leverage your own patents against "Open source software B" then IBM can make life difficult for you by revoking your right to use the patent in software A.

      I guess it's a sort of "mutually assured destruction" which should stop discourage people from firing their lawyers off willy nilly.

      The only thing I can think of is that strictly speaking such a revocable patent licence of any sort might make it unuseable under the current GPL.
  • by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:26AM (#11318102)
    My only question is, is the license revokable?
  • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:26AM (#11318104)
    Oh wait! They don't need to because open source programmers are already using them, have been for decades, and don't really give a shit at this point.
  • Wow! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Just Another Perl Ha ( 7483 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:27AM (#11318114) Journal
    All I can say is..... WOW!

    Now... if only Microsoft could do that (yeah, right).

    Of course... SCO will find some way to say its illegal or immoral or unconstitutional or something.

    Isn't that usually how it goes?

  • by farrellj ( 563 ) *
    IBM must have some tanj smart people in their upper eschelons to be willing to do something like this!

    IBM
    You BM
    We All BM
    For IBM!!!

    Now all we need is some other companies to come to their senses and join in.

    ttyl
    Farrell ...information wants to be free!
  • Best of luck (Score:2, Insightful)

    by back_pages ( 600753 )
    Best of luck to IBM in this clearly magnanimous move but they're simply giving away a potential competitive edge. In spirit, it's an anti-free market initiative - one that has a long term benefit, but good luck convincing an industry that its interests are better served by a more socialist attitude toward IP rights.

    Best of luck and don't let anybody say they didn't try.

    • IBM is a public company. Anything they do, you can bet it's to increase profits (or drive down competitors' profits). I'll bet there's a really bright plan behind this -- no way it's just a "socialist attitude" or a "magnanimous move". Shareholders wouldn't stand for it.
    • In spirit, it's an anti-free market initiative

      Yeah, free markets are ones where the companies on top are there because they got to the patent office first, not because of a better product/service.
  • by bergeron76 ( 176351 ) * on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:30AM (#11318144) Homepage
    This is great. I think IBM should be commended for this (assuming it's for a legit purpose).

    This could be a huge "cold-war" style arms/IP race. These days when people vote with their wallets, it's nice to see that viable candidates are emerging...

  • by strredwolf ( 532 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:30AM (#11318145) Homepage Journal
    IBM has the offical release up and it has a PDF of the patents:

    http://www-1.ibm.com/press/PressServletForm.wss? Me nuChoice=pressreleases&TemplateName=ShowPressRelea seTemplate&SelectString=t1.docunid=7473&TableName= DataheadApplicationClass&SESSIONKEY=any&WindowTitl e=Press+Release&STATUS=publish
  • by yorkpaddy ( 830859 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:33AM (#11318173)
    If Microsoft did this or open up their sources it could set FOSS back years. Thank you MS for being selfish.
  • So next the Rational Tools or DB2?
    Maybe, WebSphere MVS, CICS?
    Where will it all end? ... A company transforming from product oriented to service oriented. Woo Hoo!! and Yippee!!

    IBM building a future - well done.
  • by rcpitt ( 711863 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:34AM (#11318189) Homepage Journal
    IBM is either sold on Open Source as "the way of the new millenium" or making hay before the patent paradigm of the old millenium is stabbed in the heart.

    Personally I think they have the idea that software patents are going the way of the dodo and this is the easiest and best way of cashing in on what they have - and they have my vote in the race for smartest global corporation this mellenium.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:48AM (#11318261)
      And It will be of great interest to see which patents they let out of the box. Have to wonder if there isn't some underlying spite in it all. Suppose: IBM lets a patent out of the box , but Microsoft and perhaps others currently licenses that very same patent? Implies: whatever Microsoft licenses of IBMs patents they still have to pay for, as long as they keep their source closed. Whereas some new OpenSource startup or other gets it for free, as long as they opne the source. Is this away also to force open the hand of the closed source model?
    • Old saying:

      The programming industry is the largest service industry pretending to be a manufacturing industry.

      IBM makes it's money from hardware, consulting and services. What is better business idea than supporting and developing free software and then selling support and consulting. If your customers don't buy software they can spend that money to service and hw! Smart!

  • Oh great! I cant wait to get hold of the source code to DB2 and Websphere!

    They are open sourcing them arent they? After all, they are the champions of open source software are they not?


    • I haven't looked at the list of patents they're turning over, but my best guess is that they're on technologies that still have potential, but IBM's basically given up trying to profit from. I'm kind of hoping / thinking it's their voice recognition stuff (ViaVoice). It's probably stuff that could really go places, but IBM doesn't feel like committing the resources to get there. Turning the IP over to Open Source developers allows third parties to apply this tech in interesting ways and then IBM can come a
  • Wow! This is great news from Big Blue. For those not wanting to go through the NYT DNA test Google News has some other sources.

    IBM to give free access to 500 patents [marketwatch.com]
    CNet [com.com]
    And others [google.co.uk]

  • Mmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by DoChEx ( 558465 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:46AM (#11318246)
    Is this not like, you first hit is free???
  • Yeow... Some of these patents may of been tripped over by alot of companies. IBM may of just patented the Cable/DSL modem, some types of PCI/DMA chipsets, computer multitasking, the file system, web browser interfaces and operations... Damn. Where's IBM's lawyers and why haven't they sued Microsoft's pants off yet?
  • I don't want to hear another word from Bill Gates and his ilk about how only Communists want to share with their neighbors. This is the best news I've heard for those of us trying to explain the issues to our relatives and employers:

    Father-in-law: You can't just give away your work! That doesn't make any sense!
    Me: Maybe not to you, but IBM likes the idea so much that they're even letting us use their patents for free.
    FIL: IBM? Really? Huh - they're not exactly a pack of hippies, are they?

    One of the most conservative companies in the USA has publically and loudly proclaimed that sharing IP with your friends, neighbors, and even competitors is a good thing for profits (as long as you do it on level terms). Every time I hear some proprietary advocate spouting about how you can't make money by giving things away, I'm going to respond with "IBM says you're wrong" until they shut up or go away.

  • Hell Yeah (Score:4, Insightful)

    by _Hellfire_ ( 170113 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:52AM (#11318297)
    Kudos to IBM. This is a great move.

    The biggest benefit I see for this is that by opening their portfolio, the innovations they spearheaded are built upon by an army of thousands. Now that IBM are turning into a service company (which is evidenced by their sale of the PC division - they will concentrate on selling service with their big iron (good move IMHO)), the innovations they have already invested in will continue to reap them rewards because their "style" of computing is already compatible with whatever the FOSS community will bring to the table. Cool innovations for FOSS and rewards for IBM. Win-Win situation!
  • open all patents (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @12:59AM (#11318332) Homepage Journal
    This is perfectly reasonable for IBM. In fact, patents require disclosure of the protected invention, if only to prevent unintentional infringement. If software is patented, its searchable nature offers much cheaper avoidance of serendipity, and much easier shopping for potential licensees. Copyright is still the more appropriate protection, with all those same compelling open-source characteristics. But as long as they are playing the patent game, at least IBM is playing fair - with those few patents they're now opening.
  • Who is Behind this? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by femto ( 459605 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:05AM (#11318358) Homepage
    Surely this has been in the pipline for a long time? Who is behind it?

    Is this something IBM has done of its own accord, or is there an organisation out there (eg. OSDL) driving this? Consequently, is IBM the only company to do this, or are they the first cab off the rank with other companies to follow quickly?

    Anyone have some answers?

  • by taweili ( 111177 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:25AM (#11318455)
    1984 [uriah.com] just comes 20 years late! Wait! Apple is using PowerPC?!? We are DOOMED! Seriously, IBM has disguised itself nicely in the past couple years as friends of open source: adapting Linux, push Sun to open Java, and Eclipse. IBM has changed its image from the Evil Big Brother to the Benevolent Giant. However, deep down inside, IBM is still the evil big brother in disguise. I am interested to see the reaction from Open Source Communities, a lot of which are against software patent all together. I suspect most would likely to hail this decision rather then speak against it since IBM is such a friend of open source. However, in long term, the projects using IBM's patents are going to effectively become IBM's weapon against its commercial competitors as IBM would be the only one qualified to including these projects in its commercial offering. Software patent is bad, bad, bad!!!
  • by JollyFinn ( 267972 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:40AM (#11318522)
    If open source software X uses pledged patent IBM patent Y. And if company Z uses the X, and then company Z becomes something like SCO is today against OSS then IBM can sue them over patent Y since their lisence was revoked because of their lawsuit agais OSS entities. Yes. Thats the trick, they are making this partially for against future SCO:s.
    IANAL, but this looks obvious.
  • BSD? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by skyman8081 ( 681052 ) <skyman8081&gmail,com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @01:45AM (#11318539) Homepage
    It sounds like the patents can ONLY be used by OSS projects, and not by closed-source. Most likely, this means that it will only end up in GPL projects, as a BSD-License can lead to some very shaky grey-area with this aspect of the source licensing.
  • by aixguru1 ( 671173 ) <jdsfrakes@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @02:13AM (#11318670)
    This a very good strategy for IBM. They have a lot of good researchers coming up with ideas that will cost money to develop. Many of those can benefit the computing industry in general and help them in further development of core technologies. This is the easiest way for IBM to, in a sense, get free development. By opening up the patents, they don't have to spend money on implementation which will allow them free use of the technologies to futher their products with no real development cost. The open source community can implement and futher the technology covered by the patents allowing IBM to integrate that back into their core business to further the commercial products without the development cost.

    It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Open Source won't earn them money, but will in turn give them the implementations without the expense of their own development team doing it. A community of free development that can implement technology that their researchers create, who could ask for more?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @02:22AM (#11318707)
    What would be really cool is if IBM reworked its cross licensing agreements it has with big companies like Microsoft to say that they can only use IBM's patents if they extend their cross license to allow open source products to be used.

    MS is still a relative newcomer to patents, but IBM is an old pro. As there are surely hundreds or thousands of patents IBM owns that are used by Windows, Office, etc. and probably only dozens that IBM software would make use of, IBM has the strong hand and could do this.

    Think of how Linux's growth could be helped over the next few years if the overhang of MS lawsuits was removed, and their ability to embrace and extend using patents was curtailed? Maybe I'm dreaming, but its a good dream!
    • What would be really cool is if IBM reworked its cross licensing agreements it has with big companies like Microsoft to say that they can only use IBM's patents if they extend their cross license to allow open source products to be used.

      Cool, but they won't do it, because it might bite them on the ass. It would invalidate most, if not all, of IBM's current cross-licensing deals with closed-source companies.

      What IBM could do, is DONATE these patents to open source. That way, open source could play the cr

  • by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:01AM (#11318805) Homepage
    This is very good for free sofwtare and it is very good for the economy. I love how IBM apparently both get free software, and is intend of passing this understanding to others. It was seen in the Linux prodigy commercial which in very simple terms explained the power of free software to laymen, and it is seen in this quote from the article:
    In recent speeches, for example, Samuel J. Palmisano, I.B.M.'s chief executive, has emphasized the need for more open technology standards and collaboration as a way to stimulate economic growth and job creation.
    What I don't see is how it directly help IBM. Of course, economic growth and job creation will indirectly help IBM, as IBM will likely take its fair share of an expanding economy. However, that would put "enligthened self interest" to the extreme, with a bit of hybris in it. Red Hat can calculate that way, better have a smaller part of big Linux market, than dominate a small Linux market. But IBM isn't as dominating in the world economy as Red Hat is in the Linux market.

    Of course it is possible that the move is a pure PR stunt, and the patents are worthless anyway. But I'm not that cynical.

  • by Vo0k ( 760020 ) on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @03:55AM (#11318939) Journal

    Imagine this scenario:
    - party A releases Free Software program implementing some technique.
    - party B patents the technique.
    - party B releases the patent for free use in Free Software.
    - party C challenges the patent claim, indicating A as author of prior art.
    - A would definitely better like B to hold the patent in current state than C to have it challenged (A's program gets protected under the patent rights that way)

    Can C succeed in challenging the patent claim?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 11, 2005 @05:21AM (#11319205)
    They will donate now patents to open source software, so open source developpers will all accept software patents. (See EU now)

    Then, a few years later, nobody won't donate them anymore to open source projects, and you can't programm something without violating some patents, because then software patents are fully accepted.

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Working...