View Full Version : FOSS backstabbed by IBM!
papangul
June 30th, 2010, 04:46 AM
Link: IBM's Bilski brief spits in the face of the free software and open source movements (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/06/ibms-bilski-brief-spits-in-face-of-free.html)
In a footnote on page 25 of its amicus curiae brief (submission to the court) in the Bilski case, IBM makes the following claim that is not only the exact opposite of the truth but also shows the ruthless and cynical enemy of open source that IBM is in the patent context:
"Patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code on a patentee’s terms---which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development."
It seems more absurd things go on happening in real life than it can ever happen in any wonderland of Alice. :shock:
chessnerd
June 30th, 2010, 04:50 AM
Did not see that one coming...
I guess that's why it's called back-stabbing instead of just regular stabbing.
Dustin2128
June 30th, 2010, 04:59 AM
that statement makes zero sense but IBM is, in my opinion, a dying company. Still though, this is a backstab indeed.
KiwiNZ
June 30th, 2010, 05:19 AM
that statement makes zero sense but IBM is, in my opinion, a dying company. Still though, this is a backstab indeed.
Their profits in the 2009 fiscal year were up as are their profits in each fiscal 1/4 2010 , a "dying" company? no.
As for Blogg a grain of salt has more credibility.
wilee-nilee
June 30th, 2010, 05:27 AM
Their profits in the 2009 fiscal year were up as are their profits in each fiscal 1/4 2010 , a "dying" company? no.
As for Blogg a grain of salt has more credibility.
+1 and a reference to a footnote on a huge document.
Dustin2128
June 30th, 2010, 05:32 AM
Their profits in the 2009 fiscal year were up as are their profits in each fiscal 1/4 2010 , a "dying" company? no.
As for Blogg a grain of salt has more credibility.
Wrong choice of words, should have said stagnating rather than dying.
KiwiNZ
June 30th, 2010, 05:52 AM
Wrong choice of words, should have said stagnating rather than dying.
After reading material my Wife brought back from her recent trip to IBM US I will have to say again your choice of words are wrong.:wink:
Dustin2128
June 30th, 2010, 06:46 AM
After reading material my Wife brought back from her recent trip to IBM US I will have to say again your choice of words are wrong.:wink:
Meh.
papangul
June 30th, 2010, 08:05 AM
As for Blogg a grain of salt has more credibility.
After reading material my Wife brought back from her recent trip to IBM US I will have to say again your choice of words are wrong.:wink:
It's somewhat strange that you find the documents from a company in which it paints a rosy picture of itself very credible, while you find a "Blogg" post which cites documents produced by the same company to the Supreme Court to be having less credibility than a grain of salt!
Meh.
+1
KiwiNZ
June 30th, 2010, 08:58 AM
It's somewhat strange that you find the documents from a company in which it paints a rosy picture of itself very credible, while you find a "Blogg" post which cites documents produced by the same company to the Supreme Court to be having less credibility than a grain of salt!
+1
Not really , my Wife is a senior exec for IBM and not a flakey Blogg writer
papangul
June 30th, 2010, 09:37 AM
my Wife is a senior exec for IBM
Thank you very much for the disclosure, although I was talking about the reports and the blog post, not about her or the blogger.
wilee-nilee
June 30th, 2010, 09:47 AM
Since several of you are arguing a point first did you download the link to the actual brief, it is referring to another case in the footer it means nothing but is a reference, which I think fits well within blog garbage interpretations here it is if you can't take the time to download it. 25th page footer.
161946
KiwiNZ
June 30th, 2010, 10:16 AM
This paragraph goes a long way to discredit the blogger ...
"IBM recently also lobbied for software patents in New Zealand, where the abolition of software patents was a political possibility but it seems that a trend reversal has occurred, with IBM and Microsoft advocating software patents. I don't know what exactly they said. New Zealand is antipodal to where I live, and I don't have any contacts there. "
He says "I don't know what exactly they said" yet he is quite willing to make sweeping conclusions and accusations with is the norm for zeolots.
papangul
June 30th, 2010, 10:22 AM
it is referring to another case in the footer it means nothing but is a reference,
Are those words quoted from the reference case or are those comments made by IBM? Even if it is the former, it does not matter since it appears to be reflecting the POV of IBM. Or am I mistaken?:confused:
nrs
June 30th, 2010, 10:43 AM
Semi-relevant:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/ibm-breaks-oss-patent-promise-targets-mainframe-emulator.ars
IBM is threatening to pursue legal action against TurboHercules, a company that sells services relating to the open source Hercules project, an emulator that allows conventional computers with mainstream operating systems to run software that is designed for IBM System Z mainframe hardware.
In a letter that IBM mainframe CTO Mark Anzani recently sent to TurboHercules, Big Blue says that it has "substantial concerns" that the Hercules project infringes on its patents. The letter is a brusque half-page, but was sent with nine additional pages that list a "non-exhaustive" selection of patents that IBM believes are infringed by the open source emulator.
IBM, Google, etc. as a whole are not friends to open source / free software -- nor are they foes. We share some common interests, but ultimately everyone is in it to further their own goals.
KiwiNZ
June 30th, 2010, 10:48 AM
Semi-relevant:
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/04/ibm-breaks-oss-patent-promise-targets-mainframe-emulator.ars
IBM, Google, etc. as a whole are not friends to open source / free software -- nor are they foes. We share some common interests, but ultimately everyone is in it to further their own goals.
Open source companies that infringe on patents have themselves to blame. They also do the Open source sector a dis-service and bring it into disrepute.
nrs
June 30th, 2010, 12:41 PM
Open source companies that infringe on patents have themselves to blame. They also do the Open source sector a dis-service and bring it into disrepute.
You're missed the point.
Mueller points out that two of the patents that IBM listed in its letter to Hercules are included in the list of 500 patents that IBM promised to not assert against open source software in 2005
Do you support software patents btw, or do you just realize the situation as it is?
saulgoode
June 30th, 2010, 01:53 PM
Since several of you are arguing a point first did you download the link to the actual brief, it is referring to another case in the footer it means nothing but is a reference, which I think fits well within blog garbage interpretations here it is if you can't take the time to download it. 25th page footer.
161946
The footer is not a reference, it is a claim being made by IBM prefaced by a reference. The judge's opinion in the actual brief being referenced in the footer contained no mention of Open Source and certainly did not suggest that software patents are what enabled the Open Source community to thrive.
See Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org). It is rather ludicrous to think that supporters of Free and Open Source Software would give their software away under nonrestrictive copyright licenses yet not want to provide users with the patent licenses to actually use the software. This is a tactic engaged in by corporations which want to benefit from appearing to be associated with open source without actually sacrificing their monopolistic control.*
* Notice how I preceded my own words with a reference to the OSI website. Despite the reference, the words being spoken are still mine and I am responsible for the opinions expressed, just as IBM is responsible for making the claim that software patents have "fueled the explosive growth of open source software development".
wilee-nilee
July 1st, 2010, 01:23 AM
n
papangul
July 1st, 2010, 04:38 AM
.. it is referring to another case in the footer it means nothing but is a reference, which I think fits well within blog garbage interpretations here..
The footer is not a reference, it is a claim being made by IBM prefaced by a reference. The judge's opinion in the actual brief being referenced in the footer contained no mention of Open Source and certainly did not suggest that software patents are what enabled the Open Source community to thrive.
See Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org). It is rather ludicrous to think that supporters of Free and Open Source Software would give their software away under nonrestrictive copyright licenses yet not want to provide users with the patent licenses to actually use the software. This is a tactic engaged in by corporations which want to benefit from appearing to be associated with open source without actually sacrificing their monopolistic control.
Thanks a lot, saulgoode, for clearing up the doubts about the footnote in the minds of some of us here.=D>
Mr. Picklesworth
July 1st, 2010, 05:06 AM
I don't see how that is “back-stabbing.” Just sounds like a lawyer at IBM who really believes in software patents. Nothing inherently wrong with that; the free software community is a diverse bunch by the very nature of being free.
wilee-nilee
July 1st, 2010, 05:24 AM
Thanks a lot, saulgoode, for clearing up the doubts about the footnote in the minds of some of us here.=D>
Glad to be of service to the delusional.:p
This is far more complex then any of us can really surmise anyway, your just arguing for arguments sake, I know I was.;)
papangul
July 1st, 2010, 06:47 AM
..your just arguing for arguments sake..
Not really, I think I am a bit too old to do that.
Your post had me in doubt as well(as I expressed in my earlier post). Since examining the reference case is a herculean task, I had almost zero expectation that the doubt would ever get cleared. So, when I woke up this morning and read saulgoode's post I genuinely felt the need applaud him.
Dr. C
July 1st, 2010, 04:45 PM
The footer is not a reference, it is a claim being made by IBM prefaced by a reference. The judge's opinion in the actual brief being referenced in the footer contained no mention of Open Source and certainly did not suggest that software patents are what enabled the Open Source community to thrive.
See Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org). It is rather ludicrous to think that supporters of Free and Open Source Software would give their software away under nonrestrictive copyright licenses yet not want to provide users with the patent licenses to actually use the software. This is a tactic engaged in by corporations which want to benefit from appearing to be associated with open source without actually sacrificing their monopolistic control.*
* Notice how I preceded my own words with a reference to the OSI website. Despite the reference, the words being spoken are still mine and I am responsible for the opinions expressed, just as IBM is responsible for making the claim that software patents have "fueled the explosive growth of open source software development".
Thanks for clarifying this. The is little doubt that IBM made the claim software patents have "fueled the explosive growth of open source software development", but the more important question is why?
The idea that one can release software under the GPL and then sue someone in the downstream for patent infringement is on very thin ice. There are some good arguments that GPL v2 involves an implicit patent grant http://robertogaloppini.net/2007/03/29/open-source-licensing-and-patents-gplv2-has-already-adressed-the-issue/ and http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/potential_defenses.pdf as for GPL v3 the patent language is very clear, and let us not forget that IBM's lawyers were involved in the drafting of GPL v3.
If one considers who IBM's competitors are, then what IBM is doing becomes clear. They are re-enforcing the copyleft provisions of the GPL with software patents to prevent propriety competitors, notably Microsoft, from using their FLOSS contributions in propriety software without a separate patent license. This is certainly not backstabbing FLOSS. This is the side of the argument that the blogger missed. If there is one company that can legitimately make this argument it is IBM, since they both have a massive patent portfolio and are strong FLOSS contributers. Software patents can benefit FLOSS over propriety software in certain cases. It really comes down to whether the patentee releases FLOSS or propriety software. This being said software patents are bad for the software industry as a whole FLOSS or propriety.
Lucradia
July 1st, 2010, 07:43 PM
I don't see how that is “back-stabbing.” Just sounds like a lawyer at IBM who really believes in software patents. Nothing inherently wrong with that; the free software community is a diverse bunch by the very nature of being free.
IBM promoted open source a lot, they had linux commercials in the 90s.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.