Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

The team is Eleonora Rosati, Annsley Merelle Ward and Merpel. E-mail the Kats here!

The team is joined by GuestKats Kevin Bercimuelle-Chamot, Jocelyn Bosse, Alessandro Cerri, Anastasiia Kyrylenko, Marcel Pemsel and Anna Maria Stein.

SpecialKats: Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo (TechieKat), Antonios Baris (Book Review Editor), Rose Hughes (PatKat) and Chijioke Okorie (Africa Correspondent).

InternKats: Asude Sena Moya and Söğüt Atilla.
Home / Jeremy Phillips / OPEN SESAME ... BIG BLUE GETS FRIENDLY

OPEN SESAME ... BIG BLUE GETS FRIENDLY

-

The IPKat's friend Jordgubbar has sent him some thoughts on a recent announcement by IBM, the nature of which is self-explanatory:
"BBC News reported on Monday that IBM intends to license 500 of its US software patents on a royalty-free basis so that they can be used by the open source development community. IBM has described the step as a "new era" in the management of its patent portfolio and has indicated that further patents would be made more freely available in future. The patents include software for a range of functions, including text recognition and database management (a full list is available here).

Announcing the pledge, Dr John E. Kelly of IBM said that "True innovation leadership is about more than just the numbers of patents granted". The pledge applies to any individual, community, or company working on or using software that meets the Open Source Initiative definition of open source software. According to US Patent and Trademark Office, IBM was granted more US patents than any other company for the twelfth consecutive year. IBM remains the only company to receive more than 2,000 patents in one year. Indeed, the New York Times reports that IBM was granted 3,248 US patents in 2004. With reportedly more than 40,000 patents in its portfolio, IBM has not stated any intention to step down its filing activities, and since it intends to maintain the 500 "released" patents, the move is unlikely to make a dent (however small) in its portfolio maintenance costs. The position would obviously be different if IBM announced an intention to publish previously unpublished software inventions.

IBM's new logo?

Cautiously welcoming the move, it seems that the open source community is not altogether appeased by IBM's gesture (e.g. see here). Since IBM has not given up the notion of proprietary rights in software (a premise of open source) and the move is unlikely to make any significant cost impact, what is therefore meant by the "new era" in portfolio management remains unclear."

The IPKat wonders how many of his readers agree. Please post a comment and let him know.
OPEN SESAME ... BIG BLUE GETS FRIENDLY OPEN SESAME ... BIG BLUE GETS FRIENDLY Reviewed by Jeremy on Thursday, January 13, 2005 Rating: 5

8 comments:

  1. AnonymousFriday, 14 January 2005 at 04:51:00 GMT

    "Giving up the notion of proprietary rights in software" is a "premise for Open Source"?

    I don't agree with that.

    The GPL and all other Open Source licenses are firmly based on the "notion of proprietary" copyright protection.

    Maybe the author wanted to say "giving up on the notion of patents". That would actually make sense.

    As for the IBM move, 500 out of 40.000 is 12.5 percent, leaving the potential threat of most other IBM software patents unchanged. However, it is a step in the right direction, even if it is maybe a small one.

    Karl-Friedrich Lenz

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFriday, 14 January 2005 at 10:12:00 GMT

    Before reading the above comment, I was also going to disagree that Open Source is predicated on giving up proprietory rights. The movement in fact is based on the idea that, in return for a royalty-free licence in respect of other people's rights, you also grant a royalty-free licence of your rights to others.
    The value or otherwise of IBM's action surely depends critically on the subject-matter of the 500 patents concerned. I have seen no analysis of this.
    Darren Smyth

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFriday, 14 January 2005 at 14:15:00 GMT

    Another problem is that this move from IBM does not change anything for closed source SMEs. They don't have means to acquire a significant portfolio of software patents for bartering either. Add in the fact that IBM keeps lobbying feverishly to get the software patents directive through in Europe, and it's not surprising the FFII and nosoftwarepatents.com aren't particularly impressed by IBM's move.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFriday, 14 January 2005 at 20:06:00 GMT

    IBM is still promoting the use of weapons in their own country, and they try to push the same policy in Europe. Do you trust IBM? Will you trust IBM in 10 years? in 20 years? Should I rely on their patents for my OSS product? My answer is: of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousSaturday, 5 February 2005 at 06:15:00 GMT

    Since you asked, here's an entry on my own blog on the matter. It digresses halfway through, because blogs have to do that.

    In case you don't want to click through: this is purely PR, and changes nothing for the OSS community or IBM.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousSunday, 30 October 2005 at 04:56:00 GMT

    Yo, This blog is pretty neat. You should check out mine sometime. It pretty much covers make lots of money from home related stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousMonday, 31 October 2005 at 04:29:00 GMT

    Would The Thought Of Thousands Of Other Web Site's All Displaying Your Content,

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousThursday, 3 November 2005 at 02:19:00 GMT

    Click here if your LOOKING for "No Charge Online Advertising Channels For Any Business"

    ReplyDelete

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.