patent #: 5,796,967
title: presenting apps in an interactive service
filed: November 26, 1993
issued: August 18, 1998

patent #: 5,442,771
title: storing data in an interactive network
filed: November 26, 1993
issued: August 15, 1995

patent #: 7,072,849
title: presenting ads in an interactive service
filed: November 26, 1993
issued: July 4, 2006

patent #: 5,446,891
title: adjusting hypertext links with weighted user goals and activities
filed: November 2, 1994
issued: August 29, 1995

patent #: 5,319,542
title: ordering items using an electronic catalogue
filed: September 27, 1990
issued: June 7, 1994

Re: Patents

We should look at when these patents were filed, and consider that it was sometime before filing (say 6 months to 1 year?) that the original idea was developed and consider the validity of the patents in that time period.

Looking at the patent titles today may lead us all to think that there is no “genuine innovation. Certainly not innovation that should be protected”, as you say Here is the list of the patents in question:

patent #titlefiledissued
5,796,967presenting apps in an interactive serviceNovember 26, 1993August 18, 1998
5,442,771storing data in an interactive networkNovember 26, 1993August 15, 1995
7,072,849presenting advertising in an interactive serviceNovember 26, 1993July 4, 2006
5,446,891adjusting hypertext links with weighted user goals and activitiesNovember 2, 1994August 29, 1995
5,319,542ordering items using an electronic catalogueSeptember 27, 1990June 7, 1994

But 13 years ago, and keep in mind that we’re talking 13 years of Internet innovation, would you possibly consider the patents to cover genuine innovation? (Note: IANAL, but the one about ordering items using an electronic catalogue seems a little weak…but that is just my uninformed opinion).

How many years from now will we be looking at the scroll wheel on a RIM blackberry or the iPod click wheel and think “man, that wasn’t innovation. It’s so obvious to us today and in so many products that it must be common sense”.

Next: Why does IBM have OSS cred…

Well, because we were out there supporting OSS before other vendors found it fashionable. Yes, IBM’s embrace of OSS has been with it’s own interests in mind. That doesn’t mean that customers and the community didn’t benefit.

For example, When the IBM WebSphere team decided to use the Apache Web Server within WebSphere Application Server (WAS) instead of developing their own internal product, IBM, the community and customers benefited. And we took this bold step before other app server competitors considered it (and some never did). IBM benefited because they didn’t have to spend development resources on building an internal web server when Apache was good enough. And since then, IBM has several employees working on the Apache Web Server project (albeit less than if we were still developing a completely different product internally), so that helps the community. Less development resources working on underlying technology meant that we redirect these resources to higher value products/features that customers were asking for, thereby benefiting customers.

And since you mentioned Apache Geronimo, yes, IBM, the community and customers have benefited from IBM’s involvement. (note that IBM’s one of 19 companies with committers on the Geronimo project). The above points apply to how IBM and the community benefits. Customers benefit from being able to get a free product, (WAS Community Edition) from IBM that fits well with their other IBM WebSphere infrastructure, or works all by its lonesome thank you very much

It isn’t that Sun and Novell are pretending they aren’t in it for the profit- they are up front about that. But they do often pretend they are in it for other reasons as well, which may well be true for specific individuals in Sun and Novell, but certainly is not true for the companies as a whole.

Just for example, Simon is going around saying ‘I told you so‘ about IBM suing Amazon. The implication there is that Sun is somehow better than IBM on this count. I call BS. If Sun had that same batch of patents as IBM, they’d be doing exactly the same thing as IBM.

[NB: possibly, I'm wrong about that, but I have no way of knowing, since Sun has not made a specific policy statement on the issue like RH has. If Sun were to make such a statement, and license the use of their patents appropriately, I'd happily eat my words. But I don't see it happening.]

as a pragmatist, i have no problem with any of the above. but many do.

but i agree that it is very cluetrain - and very intelligent - of IBM to be as transparent as they are about their motives.

i don’t necessarily buy the assertion that Novell or Sun are any less up front about their profit motive, however. but maybe it’s just that i talk to different folks than the community does.

re: Tim’s point, i’m not. that’s a reflection, IMO, of how positively IBM is viewed in the community. if this was Microsoft - or probably Sun, this would be all over a number of community sites.

Mike: let’s be careful to draw the line here between open source code and overbroad patents. neither i nor the majority of the developers or community members i speak with begrudges IBM the opportunity to make money with open source. even Stallman, as Luis observes, is not anti-economic gain from software - he’s simple fundamentalist on the belief that the software itself must be free. and for the record, i don’t question anyone’s right to make closed source software. if you want to make money from code, that in my view is your right, just as it is to choose the model you release, sell and distribute it under.

what i do think is questionable, however, are profiting from patents like “Ordering Items Using an Electronic Catalogue” or “Presenting Advertising in an Interactive Service” as i personally do not feel that they represent genuine innovation. certainly not innovation that should be protected.

given the quality of IBM’s legal representation, and the fact that firms are already paying licenses for these patents, i’m fairly certain that the courts disagree with me.

but that doesn’t mean that i have to agree with it. nor, i’m arguing, based on their past actions with respect to patents, does IBM as a corporation.

all of that is a question for the courts, of course. what i’m trying to determine is community reaction.

will we see more comments like this, or more like this? we’ll just have to wait and see, but it’s rare that IBM risks its public perception this way.

Profiting off open source generates funds to reinvest in development in open source. I recently spoke to one of the top mobile companies in the world - they commented that with $1 investment in their Linux efforts, they get $5 back. That return lowers the development and GTM costs and actually makes some projects fundable (as opposed to being killed in business plan b/c the engineering estimates are too high). Companies don’t just hire expensive, top caliber engineers to work in OSS for the fun of it. Profits and returns are necessary and not necessarily “evil”.

I may work for IBM but have absolutely no knowledge, insider info, etc about the Amazon suit - that’s something for the legal teams to worry about and let’s be honest, lawyers don’t talk much unless they have to.

However, as an outside observer, I have to wonder if Amazon’s past litigation history has anything to do with this. Most OSS patent grants have some sort of “backfire” clause to maintain balance - if you sue, you lose your rights to use (see last paragraph in PDF link). I wonder if Amazon’s Barnes & Noble past has come back to haunt them for upsetting a balance.

I think if anything, Steven, a big chunk of their PR success is because of, not in spite of, being unrepetant about their motivations. Everyone sane knows that the only motive you can trust a corporation on is their profit motive. Every other corporate motive is at best unreliable and at worst a lie. So when Sun or Novell says ‘oh, we love open source’, people naturally are skeptical. When IBM says ‘we love the money open source brings us’, you may or may not like that motive, but you know they are being honest and straightforward, which is I think fairly cluetrain of them.