6 ms·

You know a company is in its last legs when it turns to patent-trolling.

_binder 8y ago
Its business!
kevinSuttle 8y ago
This is one of the oldest companies in existence. It is hardly on its last legs. Also, patents are a huge revenue stream at IBM. Always have been. However, that merely makes them the original patent troll. :)
- Marsymars 8y ago
  > This is one of the oldest companies in existence One of the oldest tech companies. There are many hundreds of companies that have been around longer than the United States.
  - kevinSuttle 8y ago
    And this is worth the distinction, why?
Ensorceled 8y ago
IBM has been a "patent troll" for a long, long time. Heck, the term "ninja lawyer" was invented for their patent teams.
- ProAm 8y ago
  Most job postings I see are for a "Rockstar lawyer"
ballenf 8y ago
Generally patent trolling is claimed when a company has never used the patents themselves (a non-practicing entity). Here IBM and Sears, iirc, created Prodigy which was innovative technically on several fronts. They spent a lot of resources solving problems and they got patents on some of those solutions. I think we risk legitimizing actual patent trolls by lumping them in with IBM's behavior in this case. That being said, I think the patent scheme is broken and "non-obvious" needs start meaning something again, not to mention that granting software (ed.) patents is so problematic. SSO serves the same function as a credit rating or identity verification service has served for decades. I'd call that non-obvious (applying a concept in one domain to a new domain), even if it took some serious engineering to implement that functionality "on the internet". But I also haven't read the patent. Another perspective on patents held by publicly traded companies is the perspective of the investors (admittedly an equally unpopular perspective). The person who invests in a company's stock knowing what IP that company holds has a legitimate interest in not letting those assets be devalued. With IBM, there's not a strong claim given that the licensing fees are rounding errors, but the principle is worth considering.
dagenix 8y ago
"Patent Troll: a company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services." While distasteful, this isn't patent trolling and it's not at all clear why you assert IBM is on its last legs.
zjaffee 8y ago
IBM is one of if not still the largest filler for patents in the US. If not to litigate on those patents, what's the point.

Its business!

This is one of the oldest companies in existence. It is hardly on its last legs. Also, patents are a huge revenue stream at IBM. Always have been. However, that merely makes them the original patent troll. :)

Marsymars 8y ago
> This is one of the oldest companies in existence One of the oldest tech companies. There are many hundreds of companies that have been around longer than the United States.
- kevinSuttle 8y ago
  And this is worth the distinction, why?

Ensorceled 8y ago

IBM has been a "patent troll" for a long, long time. Heck, the term "ninja lawyer" was invented for their patent teams.

ProAm 8y ago
Most job postings I see are for a "Rockstar lawyer"

ballenf 8y ago

Generally patent trolling is claimed when a company has never used the patents themselves (a non-practicing entity). Here IBM and Sears, iirc, created Prodigy which was innovative technically on several fronts. They spent a lot of resources solving problems and they got patents on some of those solutions. I think we risk legitimizing actual patent trolls by lumping them in with IBM's behavior in this case. That being said, I think the patent scheme is broken and "non-obvious" needs start meaning something again, not to mention that granting software (ed.) patents is so problematic. SSO serves the same function as a credit rating or identity verification service has served for decades. I'd call that non-obvious (applying a concept in one domain to a new domain), even if it took some serious engineering to implement that functionality "on the internet". But I also haven't read the patent. Another perspective on patents held by publicly traded companies is the perspective of the investors (admittedly an equally unpopular perspective). The person who invests in a company's stock knowing what IP that company holds has a legitimate interest in not letting those assets be devalued. With IBM, there's not a strong claim given that the licensing fees are rounding errors, but the principle is worth considering.

dagenix 8y ago

"Patent Troll: a company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services." While distasteful, this isn't patent trolling and it's not at all clear why you assert IBM is on its last legs.

zjaffee 8y ago

IBM is one of if not still the largest filler for patents in the US. If not to litigate on those patents, what's the point.