http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/technology/11soft.html?ex=1263099600&e...
Here is the salient point quoted from the end of the article:
Today's move by I.B.M. is not aimed at a specific project, but opens access to 14 categories of technology, including those that manage electronic commerce, storage, image processing, data handling and Internet communications.
"This is much broader than the contributions we've made in the past," said Jim Stallings, vice president for standards and intellectual property at I.B.M. "These patents are for technologies that are deeply embedded in many industry uses, and they will be available to anyone working on open-source projects including small companies and individual entrepreneurs.."
I.B.M. executives said they hoped the company's initial contribution of 500 patents would be the beginning of a "patent commons," which other companies would join. I.B.M. has not yet approached other companies, Mr. Stallings said.
I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to seek no royalties from and to place no restrictions on companies, groups or individuals who use them in open-source projects, as defined by the Open Source Initiative, a nonprofit education and advocacy group. The group's definition involves a series of policies allowing for free redistribution, publication of the underlying source code and no restrictions on who uses the software or how it is used.
Brian Kelsay
I.B.M. executives said they hoped the company's initial contribution of 500 patents
I read in some fish wrap somewhere that IBM applies for 500 patents a month (about the same as Microsoft) and that they are one of the primary contributors to the European Union Pro-Software-Patent Lobby.
I'd like to say I'm optimistic about the rate of their patent filings, but I'd be lying. The cynic in me thinks they are probably filing patents for things that are patently obvious (see previous pun) or perhaps even things for which "prior art" exists.
The whole patent system seems to be a money making device for large corporations (and governments) with armies of attorneys. Instead of really investing time and energy in research that may lead to some legitimate breakthrough, corps divert their resources to paying attorneys to file patents for insipid ideas and obvious techniques (see one-click shopping).
Sure, some of the patents these corps get are for truly revolutionary things and are well-deserved so that they can recover the costs of developing the ideas and make a reasonable profit. But I fear that much of the patent filing is a hedge so that they can take money out of the pockets of the little guys who independently discover the same obvious techniques, etc.
I'm talking out of my league here as I'm not a lawyer. Sorry about that.
-- Dave Hull http://insipid.com
better to have a castle than to be a ronin.
The whole patent system seems to be a money making device for large corporations (and governments) with armies of attorneys. Instead of really investing time and energy in research that may lead to some legitimate breakthrough, corps divert their resources to paying attorneys to file patents for insipid ideas and obvious techniques (see one-click shopping).
Sure, some of the patents these corps get are for truly revolutionary things and are well-deserved so that they can recover the costs of developing the ideas and make a reasonable profit. But I fear that much of the patent filing is a hedge so that they can take money out of the pockets of the little guys who independently discover the same obvious techniques, etc.
I'm talking out of my league here as I'm not a lawyer. Sorry about that.
I am watching the software patent issue with grim depression . For the moment the motives of IBM are indeterminate of effect .
And my personal feeling is that patents inherently hatch anti-social feedbacks . Rewarding the few who can jump thru hoops . Seldom enriching other than the entrenched capital vultures. Punishing the mundane with inflationary oligarchy. Feeding all that festers in such manure . Rewards for works can be accomplished in ways less conducive to evil . It's just a bit of a mental reach . The conventional wisdoms on patents are often disconnected from reality . Enumerating the realities would be way OT compared to posting a link .
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
Don Lancaster has a good track record of results . You could do well by learning from his writings .
Oren Beck
" I've been watching the rollbacks- not Wal-marts, But the roll back of our civil liberties. Will they roll back to 1788 ? "
-
Brian Kelsay -
Dave Hull -
David Nicol -
Oren Beck