IBM Seeking 'Patent-Protection-Racket' Patent 169
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!"
I don't suppose anyone has considered (Score:5, Insightful)
Shining example (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, there's the prior art. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a time when saying that would have been the equivalent of saying it about Microsoft now, or Eolas.
They changed; but can you be sure they won't change back?
A bad patent is a bad patent no matter who has it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because it's effectively money for menaces. "Pay us this fee because you might infringe on one of our patents, and you wouldn't want anything nasty to happen to you, would you?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If granted, this patent lets IBM to extract money from such protection rackets. Its intended victims are, therefore, the very people you described. "A nice protection racket you have here, better get insurance for it, 'cause you wouldn't want anything to happen to it."
This whole thing is about as tragic and unjust as Tony Sopra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(confused both with my patent and in general) (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they could do. On the other hand when you see some of the latest patents IBM has applied for, then you get the feeling that IBM is trying to make a point. The point as I see it is how much the patents system needs fixing. IBM is a huge patent holder, but rarely do you see IBM actively pursuing any smaller players. From what I can tell most of IBMs patents
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm reading it as it is also a renta-patent system,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this is a means to stop the practice (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd tend to think this is more their purpose, than to become the master bully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
(I remember working at IBM labs in Toronto, and they had a little historical display in one building, showing some meat cutters and cheese slicers, early products of the company...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. You can't patent something everybody has done the last 100 years, and claim that the patent is valid because you were the first to do it. Sure, there is the US-speciality of a "grace period" of one year, but patent extortion is a bit older than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that is the briliance of the scheme, when IBM gets sued for patent infringement they bring up all the prior art in front of the jury and show what a rotten system the patent system is.
Another effective reforem of the patent system would be to close the Texas federal patent court. A big part of the patent problem is that the plaintifs bar has worked out how to identify which Texans are never going to question a government decision, i.e. the patent grant. Or a
Re: (Score:2)
1-click again? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Very different. Amazon was most definitely not using their patent in the defensive form. A defensive patent would be used when a company tries to sue you and you show them your patent portfolio and they quickly realise its time to back down or get sued in return. Amazon used their patent to get money out of competitors and non-competitors who were using a method similar to that described in
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)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM may be an ally of yours today, but who knows what the future will hold. You guys (i.e. rebel-geeks) used to hate IBM with a passion, remember? You'll hate them again, be sure of that. As far as I can see, the OIN is already using its own patent portfolio to put fear into those that might have a legitimate beef with OIN member's violating patents of others. So IBM is already using the power of its patent portfolio against others.
Anyway, I don't see ho
Prior art (Score:2)
I think Steve Ballmer already has prior art [slashdot.org] on this method.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM has been doing this sorta stuff since Steve Ballmer was a glint in his yuppy father's eye. Hell, IBM invented the modern "FUD" strategy that Microsoft is still trying to get perfect.
Sweet (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it ought to be allowed or not is a different question, but it still brings tears to my eyes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope IBM does the right thing and has lots of fun going on a rampage with it.
If it works (Score:2)
Wow, It's Real (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
IBM has a very large patent portfolio and is able to obtain cross-licenses that small companies cannot in general. Just the fact that they have a huge patent portfolio backed with even more money is a sufficient deterrence to smaller companies: it is like holding a loaded gun to someones head. IBM fully uses this for their profit.
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.
Mod parent Insightul (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what if $IBM decided they didn't want (or couldn't be bothered) to sell a company access to their patent portfolio? What's the company going to do, sue them? It could just as complicated as things are now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
But if they patent it, anyone else who wants to make money that way has to pay IBM first.
I wonder if IBM sees that as a great opportunity to make loads of money from, say, Microsoft?
Oh, they're good at this.
Re: (Score:2)
The knee-jerk reaction "IBM is evil!" to this is short-sighted... and amazingly short-sighted around here. After all they've spent dealing with SCO, I think they deserve some trust in applying this patent for good means. The only evil I see is the USPTO if they grant something this insane - and I bet they will.
It's sad it's come to this, but this is a smart way to fix a broken system: submit the "Breaking the system is illegal" rule to the
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."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depths of 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 fathoms are indicated by "marks" on the leadline. The other depths are unmarked and are called "deeps". The leadsman estimates the depth to
Re: (Score:2)
If this is granted... (Score:2)
Then let the fun begin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is nothing in the patent that requires the owner of the patent to have any other patent. It is simply a patent application for a business process whereby one uses a patent portfolio to compel other companies into a pattern of behavior that suits the patent portfolio holder's idea of 'how things should be done', via threat of endless lawsuit.
And it quite exquisitely displays the horror of patents for business processes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a patent to own patents, it's a patent about the use of patents as a business process. So any business using their patents as a part of a business process, say leverage in negotiation or if simply acting as a patent troll, would have to pay up or license the right top use this 'business process' from the holder of the p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A fine distinction, but a rather important one.
Wow, IBM showing their since of humor... (Score:4, Funny)
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)
It a rather elegant, subtle, and expensive way of inviting said patent trolls to "kiss my hairy ass". hehe
go go IBM
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
which works against the evil corporations. But, as already pointed out in a recent discussion, what if a patent troll, which is not utilizing any of its patents, comes up against you?
This is the "patent troll" patent. (Score:2)
Then you refuse to license this patent to the patent troll, so they're in violation of your patent troll patent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Now depending on such broad claims won't make a strong case, but they don't need to be able to make a strong case to make it too much of a risk for a patent troll to take them on.
Re: (Score:2)
A patent troll wouldn't violate _any_ of the claims, though, because what this patent is about, in every single claim, is operating a pool of assets (patents being a specific example thereof) and licensing them to people when some event occurs. This is not, in reality, what patent trolls do.
Running faster than the bear. (Score:2)
The point is not to force a quick settlement, it's to discourage them from taking you on in the first place. They usually don't have to go after any particular company, and if your company has something that can complicate the case they'll chase a company that can't run as fast.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's easy to protect yourself. Just use software patented by OIN members. We have a deal with them."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A mutual defense treaty.
You sign up with NATO, and rubber-stamp what we want at the UN, and we will defend you if Costa Rica decides to invade. I'd look for some 'feedback' agreement wherein IBM gets some security from the group buying in as well. Anyone trying to sue a member, has to look at EVERY patent in the arsenal, to see if it remotely resembles what they are trying to sue for -- that alone would make suing the IBM patent a
Re: (Score:2)
you can patent something like that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, +5 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to IBM? I doubt it
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't we seen enough things where there was prior art and the patent was granted anyway?
I worked at a manufacturor of PC graphics cards in the 80s and we were hit with the "xor cursor" patent troll. I dug up the appropriate prior art but was told "they only want 15K, tektronix hp and sony have paid. We will to; it's cheaper".
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,
Or their lawyers have a sense of humor (Score:3, Interesting)
I told them they shoiuld have .... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a small company developing some new kind of networked mass storage system with what I think are novel ways to manage the backup and restoration of applications and data. Given that many others have done similar things I run the risk of infringing some obscure patent out there. Rather than devote resources I don't have to lawyers and research, I subscribe to IBM's new "super-patent" service.
I get sued by a patent holder over a method of deciding where and when to backup a fi
Not "non-governmental" (Score:2)
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)
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)
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?
I'll join the anti-patent trolls on THIS one... (Score:2)
My main problem with this... (Score:2)
A case for prior art (Score:2)
I LOVE IT (Score:2)
Check! And checkmate in three... (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Pick one that has long-since gone out of business, and possibly long enough ago that many of its former owners are deceased. Or better yet, pick a company that has ALREADY faced prosecution for a similar scheme, so the details are already public record. Problem solved.
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 m
Nah (Score:3, Funny)
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)
Funny thing is who will oppose them (Score:2)
Of course Big Blue won't sue them... (Score:3, Informative)
IBM seems to get that technical support is a better way to make money than bundling software.