Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
IBM Patents

IBM Ditches Outsourcing Patent 85

Xenographic writes "IBM has dropped their controversial outsourcing patent, both withdrawing the application and placing it into the public domain. Apparently, it was filed eight months before they implemented more stringent reviews of their patent applications so as to avoid filing for obvious patents, especially business method patents. The notice also says that they would like to thank the community for bringing it to their attention."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Ditches Outsourcing Patent

Comments Filter:
  • by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @04:43AM (#20865117) Homepage
    Apparently, it was filed eight months before they implemented more stringent reviews of their patent applications so as to avoid filing for obvious patents, especially business method patents.

    As a matter of fact, they've patented their stringent review process, and would like to take this opportunity to tout their reasonable patent review process licensing terms.
    • Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 05, 2007 @06:26AM (#20865581)
      Bitter? Twisted? Join the IBM bashing. Yes - there will be jobs outsourced to India, China, Eastern Europe, Africa...indeed anywhere where there are cheaper skilled workers to provide service. That's the way that services companies (all of them...not just IBM) win their business. How many American companies do you know that would choose to pay more for their services to keep the jobs at the supplier in the US?

      But IBM is more than just a services company...it does have a social conscience (world community grid, OO.o, patents, support for Linux etc etc), it produces some fantastic technology (System z mainframes, some of the best Unix boxes, some amazing software)...it does real research, not just product development, but real, pure research into physics, computer science...it is actively promoting green computing.

      Sure - it's not perfect, there are always bits of a large corporate that are going to be "evil"(TM), I for one am glad that IBM is not a M$, or a SCO etc.

      And yes, I do work for IBM, so I am biased. I do feel for my colleagues who are being outsourced...but I know that IBM will do its utmost to find them good jobs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Wolfbone ( 668810 )

        "Sure - it's not perfect, ..."

        It was even less 'evil' once:

        http://web.archive.org/web/20060426151241/http://www.siam.org/siamnews/mtc/mtc593.htm [archive.org]
      • Re:Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MMC Monster ( 602931 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @08:37AM (#20866865)
        I always wonder about things like this.

        For a multinational corporation as big as IBM, is it "evil" for them to outsource jobs to India, China, etc? What if they outsourced jobs to the U.S. Would that be considered evil as well?

        By moving jobs to where the labor is cheaper, they are proping up those economies. The more money the people have in poorer nations, the more companies will flourish there, providing more customers for services & products produced by IBM.

        It's a long-term plan for a company that plans to be around decades from now. Should it be labeled evil?
        • Thank you. Isolationism is such an ingrained thought in many people that they don't even realize it. It's very rare to see a viewpoint espoused that does not treat free trade (of labor) as a type of evil.
          • Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by raddan ( 519638 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @11:15AM (#20869089)
            It's hard, and one could argue, irrational, not to be concerned about one's own financial well-being. You don't hear many people saying, "I lost my job, but by golly, free trade will work it all out in the end!"

            So while it may be true that free trade is better for the world, in aggregate, it does not change the fact that it is worse for many individuals. Considering that the individual is almost always powerless in the employer-employee relationship, especially in the case of a multinational corporation, I find it hard to have sympathy for the corporation. I won't even get into comparing the expense accounts of the highest-paid employees to the wages of the lowest-paid.
            • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              So while it may be true that free trade is better for the world, in aggregate, it does not change the fact that it is worse for many individuals.

              Yeah, and many marriages end in divorce because of free trade *choice*. The *only* alternative to free trade is rape and slavery. So while it's true some may be left with broken hearts, or absent paychecks, enforcing anti-free trade protectionism is the exact opposite of freedom.

              You can quit your job. You don't have to take that job in the first place. You can start your own company and pay whatever wages you want to pay.

              Here's an epistemological economic truth 101 lesson for you:

              Trade only occurs because

              • by raddan ( 519638 )
                Ahh... Free Trade nutjob. And an AC. But I'll respond anyhow.

                The *only* alternative to free trade is rape and slavery.

                This is obviously not true. We currently live in a society where Free Trade does not exist. Can you name one government that does not regulate trade? One could argue that free trade (little "f", little "t") exists on a microeconomic scale, i.e., bartering. But even that is only prima facie free trade. For one, it ignores the bigger economic picture, like how a local economy fits into a regional, or national, or international one. It also

        • For a corporation, "long-term planning" means "next fiscal quarter".

          IBM will outsource because it improves their bottom line. And that is the bottom line. The fact that it increases the GDP of foreign nations and reduces the GDP of ours is not something they consider significant at all. When the US is no longer the GDP king, they will relocate their company to the nation that benefits them the most.
      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        How many American companies do you know that would choose to pay more for their services to keep the jobs at the supplier in the US?
        Try Netflix. They closed their online support center to open a call center in Oregon. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/business/16netflix.html?fta=y [nytimes.com]
      • by Touvan ( 868256 )
        IBM, being little more than a legal contract, most certainly has no social conscience. However, the people running it, who make decisions to support the projects you listed, very clearly do, and they deserve kudos for it.

        So kudos to the people at IBM.
    • IBM operates in the true spirit of Christian charity: their right hand has no idea what their left hand is doing.
  • Speechless (Score:3, Funny)

    by mrbill1234 ( 715607 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @04:44AM (#20865121)
    Not seeing anyone comment on this yet - I think everyone must feel the same as me.

    Speechless.

    Kudos to IBM.
    • Re:Speechless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rsmith-mac ( 639075 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @04:49AM (#20865151)
      We're only speechless because we're still trying to figure out what the catch is. IBM is a company, companies as a rule of thumb aren't nice when it means they're not making money for their shareholders. Just take a look at their comments, it wreaks of PR-speak.

      If they passed on this patent, there's a reason why, and it's not because they're trying to be "nice."
      • That's OK. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gbutler69 ( 910166 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @04:54AM (#20865169) Homepage
        It's OK for a company to make money. It's OK for a company to want to make money. It's OK for a company to "push the envelope" to make money.

        It is also OK for all of us to PUSH BACK! With words. With our purchases. With actions.

        A good company will respond to the wishes of the public and will no when they are about to step over a line the public will not stand for. Admitting they are wrong is a good thing.

        Does it mean they won't try something similar in the future? Perhaps, but, that is not the point. The point is that they will respect the voice of the public if the public makes itself heard.

        That is really all we can ask for. It is good that things like Slashdot and the rest of the internet allow us all to so unequivocally express our displeasure and let it be known that we feel a company's actions are overstepping what WE THE PEOPLE feel is appropriate.

        It is good that a company can get such a clear message to provide them appropriate moral and ethical direction.

        • ... It's OK for a company to "push the envelope" to make money ... It is also OK for all of us to PUSH BACK! With words. With our purchases. With actions.

          Does this mean that it is OK for a thief to try to steal your precious laptop when you aren't looking, and only return it if you start yelling?

          A patent is a monopoly - a restriction of freedom. Supposedly, a patent must document some useful knowledge that was not widely known before. For certain pieces of knowledge, some people might say that they can accept having to withstand a monopoly. But if a patent does not offer anything useful (ie it documents some knowledge that is widely available), then

          • No, you are correct. I hadn't considered that angle. Very good point.

            Why do companies get a pass when they try to do something deceitful and underhanded?
          • by gtall ( 79522 )
            I think you place too much faith in a large company knowing what every little piece of it is doing now and before now and having calculated all the ramifications of current actions upon past behavior. It just might be possible that this scrawny little patent wasn't such a big deal in a company as large as IBM. Give them credit for fixing a problem that came to their attention. They changed a policy on patents into one that is clearly more sensible.

            Gerry
      • Re:Speechless (Score:5, Insightful)

        by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @05:00AM (#20865191) Homepage Journal
        > IBM is a company, companies as a rule of thumb aren't nice when it means they're not making money for their shareholders.

        Maybe it all boiled down to considering the potential dollars coming from that patent, net of the probable litigation costs, Vs the actual loss of face in front of the geeks that are helping IBM fight MS dominance in the desktop OS.

        Well done IBM, the currently less evil of 'em all.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrbill1234 ( 715607 )
        Regardless of the motive - they did the right thing.

        This is something to applaud rather than pour scorn on.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Djinh ( 92332 )
        Why does everyone act like it's perfectly normal for companies to act in a completely anti-social manner? I think most people wouldn't accept that from their neighbours and that anti-social actions by companies is hurting our world more than ever.

        The future is not in the type of market fundamentalism that we see around us so much. The future is in every part of our society acting somewhat responsibly. IBM is further along that curve than most companies.

        This is a good thing, no need to be super-cynical about
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Why does everyone act like it's perfectly normal for companies to act in a completely anti-social manner?

          Because it is? It's been drilled into our heads since highschool that the point of business is to make money by any means necessary, and business hasn't done anything to counter that impression.

          I think most people wouldn't accept that from their neighbours and that anti-social actions by companies is hurting our world more than ever.

          Most people accept a lot of shit from big companies that they wouldn't accept from another person.

          The future is not in the type of market fundamentalism that we see around us so much. The future is in every part of our society acting somewhat responsibly.

          Then the future is fucked. Might as well fellate a shotgun now. Modern society is incompatible with personal responsibility.

          IBM is further along that curve than most companies.

          Talk about setting your low bars...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Aladrin ( 926209 )
          Because it -is- 'normal'. It's not right or proper, but it -is- normal.

          1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

          It's the way most large corporations act because they -know- they can get away with it and they'll make more money doing so.

          I'm one of the few not applauding IBM for this. They did the right thing, and that's good, but they should have done it in the first place. They aren't sorry they did it, either... Notice they'd like to thank us, not apolo
        • Why does everyone act like it's perfectly normal for companies to act in a completely anti-social manner?

          Because they have a legal obligation to: http://www.medialens.org/articles/the_articles/articles_2002/rh_corporate_responsibility.html [medialens.org]. Specifically, they are obliged to try to make money no matter who they shaft, and the directors can face legal sanction if they fail to do so.

          I happen to think that's a bad thing, but unless legislation changes, that's the way it is, and it's no good blaming the companies.

          • Every bloody time a big company gets discussed on /. this story pops up. Making money does not necessarily equate to having to do evil. Not actually being evil might earn less money on one side, but you have to spend a lot less on PR spin on the other. Treating and paying your employees properly might cost more short-term, but having to train an entire crew every 3 months because people start looking at the job ads 5 minutes after they start on their first day doesn't do wonders for your budget, let alone q
            • The law doesn't make social responsibility wrong, it makes it irrelevant (so it's better to say that corporates are amoral rather than immoral). If they don't screw somebody over because it's more profitable not to screw them over then it's a fortunate outcome but hardly to the corporate's credit.
      • We're only speechless because we're still trying to figure out what the catch is. IBM is a company, companies as a rule of thumb aren't nice when it means they're not making money for their shareholders. Just take a look at their comments, it wreaks of PR-speak.
        And what does PR stand for?

        Public Relations.

        And why is PR important?

        Because it relates to the bottom line.

        Any more questions?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by rucs_hack ( 784150 )
        I have a theory, possibly wrong.

        They realised it was a patentable thing, but didn't want it. So they filed, got it, and put the patent in the public domain, thus protecting themselves from any problems that might emerge from such a patent being granted to a patent troll.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Actually, IBM has been using the "patent everything for protection" strategy for decades

          They rarely sue anybody else for patent infringement. However, if you try to sue them, their lawyers will be happy to point out the three thousand IBM patents that your whatchamacallit infringes.

          And they almost never settle. They kept the US Department of Justice in court for well over a decade, as I recall.

          It was a sign of the sheer desperation of Darl McBride and crew at SCO when they decided to sue IBM. Yeah, your cr
      • Why not? "Nice" often translates into money on the bottom line. If people don't like you, they find reasons to take their business elsewhere. IBM learned that lesson a few decades ago. (They didn't "pass" on the patent, though; they went defensive. They disclosed it, and in so doing made sure that no-one else could use it against them. They do that with quite a number of potential patents every year.)
    • Re:Speechless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smilindog2000 ( 907665 ) <bill@billrocks.org> on Friday October 05, 2007 @05:07AM (#20865227) Homepage
      Yes, more kudos to IBM! Frankly, with this long string of seemingly good-guy/non-evil actions from IBM, I'm tempted to try to send them more business. I don't know about the rest of us here, but over the years, I suspect I've influenced decision makers' vendor choices to the tune of probably about $1M/year now. That includes sending a bunch of guys to Dell (and now HP), RedHat (and now Ubuntu), steering people clear of Novel (and now Apple). I suspect that the sum total of business influenced by we geeks who care about this kind of thing is billions. Good for IBM to get it.
      • Concur regarding IBM.

        However, regarding sending business to Dell for their Linux machines(which I have no problem with -- good on them), how about rewarding businesses like system 76, (http://www.system76.com/) who have been making high quality Linux ready systems all along? I just ordered a laptop from them (Pangolin) 3 days ago with Ubuntu installed on a high end Linux optimized (with drivers) system and with tech support.
        • My favorite smaller Linux computer manufacturer use to be Monarch. I didn't send clients to them since they were a smaller, less stable outfit. Now that they've gone under, who's to blame? Me for not sending the business, or them for going under? It's a hard choice either way to send business to a small outfit. As they say, no one was ever fired for recommending IBM (a very old and out of date saying). More recently, I fell into the trap of recommending the other big players, without ever venturing to
      • by wax66 ( 736535 )
        I agree. I've started to look more and more at IBM hardware and software. I started working as a contractor for them about 2 months ago, and I've been pretty impressed by their internal business practices as well. Such as the blurb on CNN about them not tracking vacation hours, and not requiring you to call in sick if you need to stay home (the reality on that last one is that it varies depending on your area and job... big surprise).

        They're still a business, so of course they encourage their employees t
  • It's great to see IBM doing things that help the company get a good reputation. So many companies seem to be self-defeating. For example, Apple decided to tie the iPhone to AT&T, the new name for SBC.
  • I am so happy to see a company do the right thing. This is truly a remarkable testament to the fact that IBM wishes to be a good corporate system and worthy steward of intellectual and technological advancement in the world.

    I say, "Hat's Off"!

    Thank You IBM!
    • by FredDC ( 1048502 )
      A multi-national corporation did the right thing. They did something in the interest of everybody (including themselves) instead of being short-sighted and only looking at the possibility of generating profit in the short run.

      I think it's sad that we are happy about it, this should be an every day normality... But unfortunately reality is quite different!

      Anyway, congratulations to IBM! It's good to know there are companies who think of the greater good instead of just their own. In the end they will be bett
  • by Anonymous Coward
    IBM patented outsourcing, but have now outsourced the patent to the Open Sourcers?

    Well, what goes around, comes around.....:)
  • Wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @05:15AM (#20865265)
    Apparently, it was filed eight months before they implemented more stringent reviews of their patent applications so as to avoid filing for obvious patents, especially business method patents.

    Wow... so they did that? Now I know, IBM is a corporation as any, working for profit, and they probably had reasons better than altruism to drop a patent that could cause them issues in court in the future.

    But I almost shed a tear reading this, a company giving up on a patent on their own since they consider it obvious. Next thing you know, we'll be allowed to do things with a single click.
    • by WeeLad ( 588414 )
      I'm sure you're right about a motive other than altruism, but I was just guessing it was a negative publicity thing. I'm not a lawyer, but even if granted this obvious patent, couldn't they avoid court hassles by simply choosing not to pursue enforcement? It would be a useless patent sitting on the books, perhaps until business culture or society changed enough to make obvious patents profitable.


  • IBM are cowards (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They got caught trying to wipe their dicks in the cookie jar, and now they're acting altruistic about it.

    With the current public opinion on outsourcing (i.e. they're stealing our jobs) IBM knows that they'll come off badly in the press. So the yellow-bellies at IBM backed down.

    They're not just evil, they're sneaky too.
  • This patent? (Score:4, Informative)

    by ThirdPrize ( 938147 ) on Friday October 05, 2007 @06:07AM (#20865495) Homepage
    Is this [uspto.gov] the one? In which case all they were patenting was an application that worked out which bits of the company you could outsource. It seems very vague to say the least.
  • I know its just part of the corporate game, yet it still gives me the fuzzies when a company does the right thing make something right
  • > The notice also says that they would like to thank the community for bringing it to their attention.

    Sure they would. I think this is a similar kind of thanks that schoolkids were supposed to give on receiving a beating: "thank you sir, may i have another"
  • The outsource of their security services or is that owned by the Unisys team?

    Serious note: Big kudos to IBM on dropping this. IMO it shouldn't have been attempted to been patented in the first place, but at least for whatever reason it was dropped overall.
  • I wish...my company probably would not pay for licensing of that process...then we'd HAVE to get rid of the idiots we have working overseas.
  • IBM used to be the Great Stan of Hardware and MS the Little Stan of Software, at least in many Mac users' eyes, but for many years now, IBM seems to have shifted over and joined the good guys (Apple is officially a GOOD company, right...?) Mainly, most likely, because it is good business practice, and IBM is the number one money machine, so good publicity = more respect = more money in the bank. Well in this case, you've earned it. Hats off to you, old IBM. I have always had the greatest respect for Big Blu

Life is a game. Money is how we keep score. -- Ted Turner

Working...