EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.09.10

Why IBM Does Deserve Scrutiny (Updated)

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Servers at 10:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Linus Torvalds

Summary: Techrights responds to people who believe that IBM should be left alone after using software patents to negotiate a competitor’s departure from the market

TOO MUCH flak would be bad for IBM and its GNU/Linux venture in mainframes, but too much IBM apologism would give IBM the signal that it is free to misbehave and get away with anything.

This will hopefully be the last post in a series of posts that so far includes:

  1. Microsoft Proxy Attack on GNU/Linux Continues With TurboHercules
  2. Eye on Security: Windows Malware, Emergency Patches, and BeyondTrust’s CEO from Microsoft
  3. IBM Uses Software Patents Aggressively
  4. IBM’s Day of Shame
  5. IBM Will Never be the Same After Taking Software Patents Out of Its Holster
  6. Thumbs up to Ubuntu for Removing a Part of Microsoft; TurboHercules Likely a Psystar-Type Microsoft Shell

“IBM says it won’t sue to protect open-source patents,” says this new report from IDG and we particularly liked Simon Phipps’ take. He wrote:

Despite the temptation to believe that some companies are unequivocal supporters of free and open source software, we should never forget that all for-profit companies are actually reptiles, acting instinctively on behalf of their shareholders and not acting on the basis of intellectual or philosophical insight. An expression of support will inevitably be a statement by a group of people within the company, motivated by a business activity. It will have been made in the context of a set of tensions between different priorities and with other groups of people in the same company. It will be the direction instinct has been steered by the availability of “food” and the presence of “threat”. Every expression of support – or act of aggression – needs to be seen in that light.

An important part of my job at Sun was to monitor actions they took that affected communities. I monitored the flow of requests to use and release open source code, ran the Ombudsman service so that I was first to hear of community issues, and acted as a (mostly!) ‘trusted friend’ to Sun’s legal staff prior to any action they took. At regular intervals throughout my five year tenure, I spoke up for communities and ensured that the actions taken in Sun’s name were not harmful to a community or Sun’s FOSS reputation. On some occasions I even had to request executive back-up for my position, in effect requesting a veto power.

Regardless of the merits of IBM’s case against TurboHercules, the fact the incident has happened at all is an important signal. I can’t for a moment believe this is the first time since IBM’s patent pledge that any part of the company has wanted to act against a community participant. We can see the tension between the statement Dan Frye makes through the Linux Foundation and the statement of another IBM spokesperson in the WSJ attempting to say the Pledge doesn’t apply to everyone. To hazard a guess, the competition is now characterised by Google – a huge user of and contributor to open source software – instead of IBM’s old foes, Microsoft and Solaris.

Matt Asay, who is an IBM partner right now, is once again defending IBM (he has just told me that Groklaw is the basis for his defense). So, be sure to watch the comment where Matt Asay is defending a business partner, IBM, without disclosure. He does not intend to mislead, but Simon replies to him with: “Thanks, Matt. I’m amazed by how many prominent people are willing to automatically give IBM a free pass rather than asking serious questions about serious actions.”

We are pleased to see that Phipps has no blind faith. Pointing to this old article, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra writes: “Just to put IBM’s actions in perspective, Simon I’m sure you’re familiar with this forbes article, even though it predates your time, where it reports how IBM “manhandled” SUN with software patents.”

We have been hearing over the years (from other sources) about IBM’s aggression with patents, so this is nothing new. To let it slide would be a mistake.

Scott Merrill, whom I know from WordPress (back in the days), writes:

It’s no secret that I’m a big Free Software fan. It’s no secret that IBM is a giant company with more money than I can possibly imagine. So I was pretty happy in 2005 when IBM, in an obvious PR stunt to get buddy-buddy with the open source community, made its Statement of Non-Assertion of Named Patents Against OSS, ostensibly saying that it would permit open source projects to use any of the items covered by those patents without risk of penalty or lawsuit. Yay! Finally, a BigCo getting it and doing the right thing! But five years is a long time, people come and go, and promises can be forgotten. IBM has lately threatened to sue someone for infringement of a lot of IBM patents, including at least two that were included in the Non-Assertion statement.

[...]

More plausibly, what I think is going on here is one of two things. Either the lawyers got a little over-excited in creating the non-exclusive list of patents used to threaten TurboHercules and included two patents covered by the Non-Assertion statement; or IBM thinks they’re free to sue the company, and not the open source project itself, for the patent infringement. My guess is it’s the latter.

That last part is important. IBM views corporations differently from the way it views individuals, but Microsoft is the same. Like Apple versus HTC maybe? It gives no excuse to these companies because they hurt actual people who are running projects outside any particular company. To attack a company that uses some piece of Free software is to cause a lot of trouble to developers, who would in turn struggle to market their work to large companies (for fear of litigation).

IBM’s parenthood of Linux (whether real or just perceived) is not particularly healthy because of the issue of control. Linus Torvalds can hardly afford to stand up against IBM's policies at this stage. When Microsoft attacked Linux with patent FUD back in 2007, Torvalds ran away to IBM’s vast portfolio and implicitly warned about retaliation (M.A.D.). But is this really the way to run a Free software project? Building of patent coalitions? A few days ago we wrote about Ooma joining IBM's patent pool for Linux and this is now being covered by IDG.

An organization created to protect Linux vendors from patent trolls has scored a new member, consumer VoIP device provider Ooma. Ooma is the second new company in as many months to join the the Open Invention Network (OIN). In March, another VoIP vendor, Guest-tek joined.

The OIN does serve an important function [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], but backers of the OIN could instead just abolish software patents in the very few countries where they exist. In reality, most/all of those companies choose to encourage the extension of one’s patent portfolio. This is not something that start-ups — particularly ones that revolve around Free software — are able to afford. Viability is limited to conglomerates that encircle the market.

Phipps does not agree with people who defend IBM without qualm. Examples include Groklaw (see yesterday’s post) and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN), who is not much of an active opposer of software patents or proprietary software (same with Microsoft’s Novell deal). SJVN fires off this article which he titled “Get Off IBM’s Back Already!”

As Inna Kuznetsova, IBM’s VP, Marketing & Sales Enablement for Systems Software and former director of Linux Strategy, told me, “We stand by our pledge of 500 patents to the open-source community. The pledge is applicable to any individual, community or company working on or using software that meets the OSI definition of open source software – now or in future. The letter in question was not a legal document but a part of ongoing dialog between IBM and TurboHercules. Intentionally taking things out of context to create FUD and throw doubt on IBM’s commitment to open source is shameful and facts-twisting. ”

[...]

Come on! What really bothers about this entire affair though isn’t the patent issue at all. To me, IBM’s letter strikes me as business as usual in a world with software patents. Given my druthers, we wouldn’t have software patents period and, IBM, really, would it kill you to work with TurboHercules? I see their efforts as being more complementary than competitive to your mainframe business. No, what really bothers me is how this has turned into an ugly mud-slinging mess with IBM as the target.

We never defended TurboHercules. We are not defending IBM, either. We never trusted Florian, but the leaked document indicates that IBM uses software patents to do its bargaining. That’s why IBM deserves some scrutiny (but not too much).

“It’s certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does [...] Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents [...] The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection.”

Linus Torvalds, 2007

Update: Simon Phipps has just posted an update which is also important to read. In part he says:

It’s been fascinating to watch so many commentators on the open source world drawing a tight circle in defence of IBM over the last day. We’ve seen PJ at Groklaw coming to some highly questionable semantic conclusions in order to leave IBM with no case to answer; the Linux Foundation parroting IBM’s original pledge without asking the hard question; SJVN rubbishing me and ignoring the actual point; Joe Brockmeier at least willing to say IBM has an issue but pulling far short of calling for an explanation. For more balanced views you have to look further afield – to CrunchGear or to Thomas Prowse for example. Presumably those two (like me) aren’t on IBM’s PR calling list!

What’s fascinating is the way people I would have expected to remain balanced instantly sprang to IBM’s defence without any hint that IBM owed the FOSS community an answer. Maybe it’s a consequence of being allowed little grace over the last 5 years, but I wish we could hear a little less lionising of IBM and demonising of anyone that questions them. Calling to account is different from judging.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

10 Comments

  1. your_friend said,

    April 10, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Gravatar

    TurboHercules is just the kind of divisive trouble Microsoft like to make and it’s easy to see why people would like to defend IBM. If TurboHercules is just a Microsoft shell, it is good that IBM crushes them like a bug. All of this has Microsoft’s competitors bickering with each other and distracted from the much larger threats to software freedom that Microsoft and their media palls are cooking up with ACTA. Boycott Novell is correct to not lose sight of the fundamentals and to get the story right.

    IBM’s big sin is to use software patents for business purposes instead of using their lobby power to eliminate them. Software patents damages all companies that deal in software, not just the ones that use free software. Software patents are business method patents, an abomination that should not exist in the first place. Business and society will always suffer from instability when laws violate common sense and basic principles like that.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Yes, IBM could reform the system, but that would not be beneficial to IBM.

    The indemnification advantage is also a way for IBM to suppress use of GNU/Linux not from IBM.

  2. your_friend said,

    April 11, 2010 at 12:40 am

    Gravatar

    PJ has a lot of updates that show that TH is indeed just a Microsoft proxy making trouble. The most interesting one is this:

    So it was actually TurboHercules who asked for the list that IBM sent. Once IBM sent it, they accused IBM of threatening them.

    and

    [The TH EU claim is that that IBM pulled an SCO by suddenly claiming, after ten years, that the Hercules open-source emulator violates IBM intellectual property that it has refused to identify.] TH filed with the EU Commission on the date of the press release, March 23. Now look at the date of the list of patents that TH specifically asked for and IBM sent them. March 11. So is it true that IBM refused to identify the intellectual property that it believes would be violated?

    She also claims that IBM is acting in “self defense” against software that is nor really “open source” which is not covered by the 2005 pledge. TH turns out to be a provider of Windows based junk under a FSF rejected license and a promoter of Windows Server and Vista, fraud in and of itself. This does not make software patents right but it does make IBM consistent with itself.

    Most reporting of this latest game by Microsoft is grossly inadequate.

  3. your_friend said,

    April 11, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    Gravatar

    This should have read:

    PJ has a lot of updates that show that TH is indeed just a Microsoft proxy making trouble. The most interesting one is this:

    So it was actually TurboHercules who asked for the list that IBM sent. Once IBM sent it, they accused IBM of threatening them.

    and

    [The TH EU claim is that that IBM pulled an SCO by suddenly claiming, after ten years, that the Hercules open-source emulator violates IBM intellectual property that it has refused to identify.] TH filed with the EU Commission on the date of the press release, March 23. Now look at the date of the list of patents that TH specifically asked for and IBM sent them. March 11. So is it true that IBM refused to identify the intellectual property that it believes would be violated?

    She also claims that IBM is acting in “self defense” against software that is nor really “open source” which is not covered by the 2005 pledge. TH turns out to be a provider of Windows based junk under a FSF rejected license and a promoter of Windows Server and Vista, fraud in and of itself. This does not make software patents right but it does make IBM consistent with itself.
    Most reporting of this latest game by Microsoft is grossly inadequate.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    There are few “mainstream news” articles that mention Microsoft’s involvement as a possibility. Here at Techrights we’ve named TH as a Microsoft shell (like SCO) since the very beginning (in March).

    I am still concerned about IBM’s patent policy in Europe (since 2008 when I first found out through the FFII).

    saulgoode Reply:

    I screwed up the formatting on that one (previews would be nice). Here’s another try:

    PJ has a lot of updates that show that TH is indeed just a Microsoft proxy making trouble. The most interesting one is this:

    So it was actually TurboHercules who asked for the list that IBM sent. Once IBM sent it, they accused IBM of threatening them.

    The “threat” occurred in IBM’s previous letter to TurboHercules: “We think that mimicking IBM’s proprietary, 64-bit System z architecture requires IBM intellectual property, and you will understand that IBM could not be reasonably asked to consider licensing its operating system for use on infringing platforms.

    The request for the list came after IBM asserted that their “intellectual property” rights would be infringed by the TurboHercules software (i.e., Open Source Hercules code).

    Miss Jones is thunderously wrong if she feels that IBM is “free to sue the pants off” of any Open Source codebase and not provoke the ire of the Free Software community. Yes, IBM has contributed a great deal to our community but that does not mean they deserve immunity from criticism when they affect threats using software patents.

    She also claims that IBM is acting in “self defense” against software that is nor really “open source” which is not covered by the 2005 pledge.

    Though the reasoning may be completely abstruse to those of us who lack the legal acumen of Miss Jones, IBM’s pledge did not specify “Open Source” as determined by Pamela Jones — irresponsibly opting for reliance upon the Open Source Initiative’s judgment instead. Imagine that!

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    What I found valuable in Groklaw is information connecting TH and MS. I don’t agree about IBM.

    your_friend Reply:

    TH is not “any open source company” and is surely not a free software company. They are a Microsoft proxy that’s launched a regulatory attack on IBM, complete with astroturf and fake “news” articles from the usual suspects. The kind of legal action that needs to happen is an anti-trust and fraud investigation of Microsoft and their proxy. There’s a 10 year backlog of other cases waiting for a rebuilt US Justice department.

    saulgoode Reply:

    TH is not “any open source company” and is surely not a free software company.

    Who has made such a claim? Regardless, I fail to see how whether TurboHercules qualifies as an “open source company” should bear any relevance to a discussion about whether the open source software it is providing might be liable for patent infringement.

    When TomTom was sued over their use of open source software implementating Microsoft’s VFAT filesystems, did the Free Software community just ignore the lawsuit because TomTom likewise doesn’t qualify as an “open source company”? Should it be considered acceptable that Microsoft employ patent threats against its competitors who distribute Linux “commercially” just so long as they don’t go after the kernel developers or non-commercial distros?

  4. saulgoode said,

    April 12, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Gravatar

    PJ has a lot of updates that show that TH is indeed just a Microsoft proxy making trouble. The most interesting one is this:

    So it was actually TurboHercules who asked for the list that IBM sent. Once IBM sent it, they accused IBM of threatening them.

    The “threat” occurred in IBM’s previous letter to TurboHercules: “We think that mimicking IBM’s proprietary, 64-bit System z architecture requires IBM intellectual property, and you will understand that IBM could not be reasonably asked to consider licensing its operating system for use on infringing platforms.

    The request for the list came after IBM asserted that their “intellectual property” rights would be infringed by the TurboHercules software (i.e., Open Source Hercules code).

    Miss Jones is thunderously wrong if she feels that IBM is “free to sue the pants off” of any Open Source codebase and not provoke the ire of the Free Software community. Yes, IBM has contributed a great deal to our community but that does not mean they deserve immunity from criticism when they affect threats using software patents.

    She also claims that IBM is acting in “self defense” against software that is nor really “open source” which is not covered by the 2005 pledge.

    Though the reasoning may be completely abstruse to those of us who lack the legal acumen of Miss Jones, IBM’s pledge did not specify “Open Source” as defined by Pamela Jones — irresponsibly opting for reliance upon the Open Source Initiative’s judgment instead. Imagine that!

What Else is New


  1. Links 17/7/2018: Catfish 1.4.6 Released, ReactOS 0.4.9, Red Hat's GPL Compliance Group Grows

    Links for the day



  2. Links 16/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC5, Latte Dock v0.8, Windows Back Doors Resurface

    Links for the day



  3. Alliance for US Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) Misleads the US Government, Pretending to Speak for Startups While Spreading Lies for the Patent Microcosm

    In the United States, which nowadays strives to raise the patent bar, the House Small Business Committee heard from technology firms but it also heard from some questionable front groups which claim to support "startups" and "jobs" (but in reality support just patents on the face of it)



  4. 'Blockchain', 'Cloud' and Whatever Else Gets Exploited to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 (or the EPC) and Patent Algorithms/Software

    Looking for a quick buck or some low-quality patents (which courts would almost certainly reject), opportunists carry on with their gold rush, aided by buzzwords and hype over pretty meaningless things



  5. PTAB Defended by the EFF, the R Street Institute and CCIA as the Number of Petitions (IPRs) Continues to Grow

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) come to the rescue when patently-bogus patents are used, covering totally abstract concepts (like software patents do); IPRs continue to increase in number and opponents of PTAB, who conveniently cherry-pick Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, can't quite stop that



  6. IAM/Joff Wild May Have Become a de Facto Media Partner of the Patent Troll iPEL

    Invitation to trolls in China, courtesy of the patent trolls' lobby called "IAM"; this shows no signs of stopping and has become rather blatant



  7. Cautionary Tale: ILO Administrative Tribunal Cases (Appeals) 'Intercepted' Under António Campinos

    The ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) is advertised by the EPO's management as access to justice, but it's still being undermined quite severely to the detriment of aggrieved staff



  8. Asking the USPTO to Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Like Asking Pentagon Officials to Pursue Real, Persistent Peace

    Some profit from selling weapons, whereas others profit from patent grants and litigation; what's really needed right now is patent sanity and adherence to the public interest as well as the law itself, e.g. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions



  9. BT and Sonos Are Still Patent Bullies, Seeing Patents as a Backup Plan

    The companies seeking to complement their business (or make up for their demise) using patents are still suing rivals while calling that litigation "research and development" (the same old euphemism)



  10. Jim Skippen, a Longtime Patent Troll, Admits That the Trolling Sector is Collapsing

    Canada's biggest patent troll (WiLAN) bar BlackBerry doesn't seem to be doing too well as its CEO leaves the domain altogether



  11. From East Asia to the Eastern District of Texas: XYZ Printing, Maxell, and X2Y Attenuators

    The patent aggression, which relies on improper litigation venues, harms innocent parties a great deal; only their lawyers benefit from all this mess



  12. Links 14/7/2018: Mesa 18.1.4, Elisa 0.2.1, More on Python's Guido van Rossum

    Links for the day



  13. Number of Oppositions to Grants/Awards of European Patents at the EPO Has Skyrocketed, Based on Internal Data

    The number of challenged patents continues to soar and staff of the EPO (examiners already over-encumbered by far too much work, due to unrealistic targets) would struggle to cope or simply be compelled to not properly deal with oppositions



  14. 'Transaction' Complete: Former EPO Executive From Belgium Takes the Seat of António Campinos at EU-IPO

    Rumours that Belgium made a back room deal with Battistelli may be further substantiated with the just-confirmed appointment of Archambeau



  15. EPO Abuses Against People With Disabilities Followed by Legal Bullying?

    The new President of the EPO is not (at least not yet) obeying court rulings from ILO; The above move seems like an attempt to derail ongoing cases at the ILO’s Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT), i.e. yet more strong-arming



  16. Weeks Later António Campinos Still in Noncompliance With the Courts (ILO's Tribunal)

    'report card' for the ever-so-intransparent (or nontransparent) new President of the EPO, who does not even bother obeying court rulings



  17. Links 13/7/2018: Kube 0.7.0, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Reviewed

    Links for the day



  18. Constitutionality and CJEU as Barriers, the UPC Agreement (UPCA) is Already Moot in the United Kingdom

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn't going anywhere and the UK merely "explores" what to do about it; for Team UPC, however, this means that the UK "confirms intention to remain in Unitary Patent system after Brexit" (clearly a case of deliberate misinformation)



  19. It's Not About EPO 'Backlog' But About Faking 'Production' by Lowering Standards

    Remarks on the EPO dropping all pretenses of genuine care for patent quality; it's all about speed now, never mind if wrongly-granted patents can cause billions in damages across Europe (a lot of that money flows towards patent law firms)



  20. Links 12/7/2018: GTK+ 4.0 Plans, OpenBSD Gains Wi-Fi “Auto-Join”

    Links for the day



  21. The Anti-35 U.S.C. § 101 Lobby Pushes Old News Into the Headlines in an Effort to Resurrect/Protect Software Patents

    The software patenting proponents (law firms for the most part) are still doing anything they can -- stretching even months into the past -- in an effort to modify the law in defiance of Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rulings



  22. Thomas Massie and Marcy Kaptur Are Promoting the Interests of Patent Trolls and Patent Lawyers While Calling That “Innovation”

    Remarks on the ongoing effort to promote patent trolls’ interests under the guise of “helping small businesses” — a very misleading propaganda pattern that we have been finding in Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobbying at the EPO



  23. Links 12/7/2018: Mesa 18.1.4 RC, Curl 7.61.0

    Links for the day



  24. Texas: When Trade Secret 'Damages' Are Almost 1,000 Times Higher Than Patent 'Damages'

    It's possible to deal with conflicts and disputes using means other than patents; a new trade secret misappropriation case and a new study from Ofer Eldar (Duke Law) and Neel Sukhatme (Georgetown Law) bring examples from Texas



  25. Cellspin Soft Will Likely Need to Pay the Accused Party's Lawyers Too After Frivolous Litigation With Patents Eliminated Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

    Pursuing bogus (questionable) patents and going even further by asserting them in court can be worse than a waste of time and money; it can actually cause the target of assertion to be compensated (legal fees) at the plaintiff’s expense — a critical fact largely ignored by the patent ‘industry’



  26. The Lack of Genuine, Honest Discussion About Patent Quality Means That Under António Campinos Software Patents Will Continue to be Granted, Campinos Strives to Make Them 'Unitary'

    The agenda of the litigation 'industry' is still being served by the existing EPO administration; this is a problem because not only do they grant patents on just about anything but they also attempt to broaden litigation jurisdiction



  27. Links 11/7/2018: Xen 4.11, Ubuntu Infographics, Lockbox and Notes

    Links for the day



  28. Links 10/7/2018: Wine 3.12, FreeNAS 11.2 Beta, GNU Helps Journalism

    Links for the day



  29. Patent Trolls Rally/Advertise Thomas Massie's Bill to Abolish PTAB and Promote Software Patents in the US

    Vocal patent maximalists (or think tanks of the litigation 'industry') want us to think that the US is too restrictive when it comes to patents (the opposite is true) and tries to change the law so as to plague/saturate the system with patent lawsuits they stand to gain from at the expense of practicing companies



  30. The Demise of East Texan Courts and the Ascent of PTAB, Alice and a SCOTUS-Compliant CAFC May Mean That US Software Patents Are Officially 'Dead'

    Companies come to grips with the need to divest and distance themselves from abstract patents; such patents are simply not tolerated by courts anymore (even if patent offices continue granting many such patents for the sake of profit)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts