4 ms·

IBM: Broken Promises and Patent Enforcement

25 points by CoryOndrejka 17y ago

hga 17y ago
Whatever you think of IBM's ends, the use of these means: "Mueller points out that two of the patents that IBM listed in its [threatening] letter to Hercules are included in the list of 500 patents that IBM promised to not assert against open source software in 2005." Can't be seen as good.
- alexandros 17y ago
  That was my initial understanding too, but I am not sure if TurboHercules, the for-profit company, is shielded as is openHercules, the open-source project. This loophole may allow them to sue and keep their promise at the same time. Again, I am not quite clear if this is the case.
  - hga 17y ago
    Interesting ... but how could IBM's promise mean anything if TurboHercules, which is an open-source company, isn't protected against assertion of all 500 of those patents. The loophole is a contractual issue between IBM, its customers, and perhaps TurboHercules (in that the latter is encouraging the customers to violate the contract). I don't see it having anything to do with open-source patent assertions and again I can't see how IBM's promise would be worth anything if the latter had its own loophole of a "If we sue you for other reason the 500 patents become fair game."
- _delirium 17y ago
  I'm guessing when someone notices that they'll drop those two patents from the suit, which still unfortunately leaves 171 patents for which they haven't promised anything. They probably couldn't actually prevail on those two patents anyway, if it went to trial: a public open letter promising not to sue if someone uses the patents could be interpreted as an implicit patent license, or at least trigger estoppel.
YuriNiyazov 17y ago
The letter lists 106 patents + 67 applied that Hercules is accused of using, but only two of those were listed in the "we won't sue you for this" category? I am inclined to give IBM some benefit of the doubt here.
Tamerlin 17y ago
This isn't exactly new behavior for IBM. It's more like tradition there. IBM has an astonishing patent portfolio, routinely topping the list of annual patent counts, and yet does next to nothing with the vast majority of them... until someone else makes money with something that IBM has a patent on. And then the blue-suited lawyers arrive and shake the infringer down for money. Even Sun's been on the receiving end of that. Anyone familiar with IBM's history would, I think, not be at all surprised by this.
ssp 17y ago
Would it be possible to make a license - "PGPL" - that included something to the effect of "If you assert any patent against any PGPL-licensed project, you lose all rights to all PGPL-licensed projects forever"?
ssp 17y ago
See also these Fake Steve pieces: http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/why-ibm-is-in-trouble-with-antitrust.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/why-ibm-is-in-trouble-with-... http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/case-against-ibm-continued.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/case-against-ibm-continued....
- hga 17y ago
  I haven't watched IBM since the '80s, but their MO as described in the first article was essentially that back then. As for the second one, it gives me greater hope that ITA Software will survive Air Canada's suspension of ITA's new product/project/service.

25 points by CoryOndrejka 17y ago

hga 17y ago

Whatever you think of IBM's ends, the use of these means: "Mueller points out that two of the patents that IBM listed in its [threatening] letter to Hercules are included in the list of 500 patents that IBM promised to not assert against open source software in 2005." Can't be seen as good.

alexandros 17y ago
That was my initial understanding too, but I am not sure if TurboHercules, the for-profit company, is shielded as is openHercules, the open-source project. This loophole may allow them to sue and keep their promise at the same time. Again, I am not quite clear if this is the case.
- hga 17y ago
  Interesting ... but how could IBM's promise mean anything if TurboHercules, which is an open-source company, isn't protected against assertion of all 500 of those patents. The loophole is a contractual issue between IBM, its customers, and perhaps TurboHercules (in that the latter is encouraging the customers to violate the contract). I don't see it having anything to do with open-source patent assertions and again I can't see how IBM's promise would be worth anything if the latter had its own loophole of a "If we sue you for other reason the 500 patents become fair game."
_delirium 17y ago
I'm guessing when someone notices that they'll drop those two patents from the suit, which still unfortunately leaves 171 patents for which they haven't promised anything. They probably couldn't actually prevail on those two patents anyway, if it went to trial: a public open letter promising not to sue if someone uses the patents could be interpreted as an implicit patent license, or at least trigger estoppel.

YuriNiyazov 17y ago

The letter lists 106 patents + 67 applied that Hercules is accused of using, but only two of those were listed in the "we won't sue you for this" category? I am inclined to give IBM some benefit of the doubt here.

Tamerlin 17y ago

This isn't exactly new behavior for IBM. It's more like tradition there. IBM has an astonishing patent portfolio, routinely topping the list of annual patent counts, and yet does next to nothing with the vast majority of them... until someone else makes money with something that IBM has a patent on. And then the blue-suited lawyers arrive and shake the infringer down for money. Even Sun's been on the receiving end of that. Anyone familiar with IBM's history would, I think, not be at all surprised by this.

ssp 17y ago

Would it be possible to make a license - "PGPL" - that included something to the effect of "If you assert any patent against any PGPL-licensed project, you lose all rights to all PGPL-licensed projects forever"?

ssp 17y ago

See also these Fake Steve pieces: http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/why-ibm-is-in-trouble-with-antitrust.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/why-ibm-is-in-trouble-with-... http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/case-against-ibm-continued.html http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/case-against-ibm-continued....

hga 17y ago
I haven't watched IBM since the '80s, but their MO as described in the first article was essentially that back then. As for the second one, it gives me greater hope that ITA Software will survive Air Canada's suspension of ITA's new product/project/service.