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. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  2. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  3. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  4. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  5. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  6. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  7. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  8. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  9. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  10. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  11. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  12. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  13. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  14. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  15. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  16. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  17. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  18. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  19. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  20. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  21. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  22. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  23. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)



  24. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Losing the Battle for Europe

    The situation in Europe is looking grim for patent trolls, for their policies and the envisioned system (which they lobbied for) isn't coming to fruition and their main casualty is the old (and functioning) EPO



  25. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead to the EPO and ANSERA is Not the Answer as Patent Quality Declines and Talented Staff Leaves

    EPOPIC comes to an end and the EPO does not mention the UPC 'content' in it; ANSERA, in the meantime, raises more questions than it answers and IP Kat makes a formal query



  26. Why Honest Journalism on Patent Matters Barely Exists

    Media coverage in the area of patent law is still appalling as it's dominated if not monopolised by those who benefit from patent maximalism



  27. Patent Maximalism Around the World

    A roundup of stories or spin observed over the past week, mostly favouring those who profit from patents rather than creation of anything



  28. Links 13/11/2017: Samsung’s DeX Revisited, Linux Kernel 4.14 Released

    Links for the day



  29. Time for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to Disregard Rulings From the Eastern District of Texas

    A look at the latest developments at the Federal Circuit and some bits about Microsoft's extortion using software patents (even after Alice)



  30. Alice (De Facto Ban on Software Patents) Remains Untouched in 2017 and Likely in 2018 As Well

    The patent microcosm (people like Dennis Crouch) is trying to find cases that can contradict Alice (at the higher levels, especially the US Supreme Court) but is unable to find them; as things stand, suing anyone with a software patent seems like a losing/high-risk strategy


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