[Patents] Greg upset about "peace, love, linux"

[srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)]

>As a business [IBM] they have an obligation to their shareholders to
>make a profit, if bad patents can be used to that end then there is
>a problem with the system, not the companies using it.

I agree.  IBM, and other companies, have broken no laws in abusing the
patent system.  For example, one US rule I have been arguing against
for many years is something called Rule 56, which obligates patent
applicants to disclose to the patent office prior art that they are
directly aware of.  It does not obligate them to search out prior art,
especially prior art that they know exists and would be relevant.  So
when you see IBM patents issuing, thousands of them, citing no non-patent
prior art, IBM is legally obeying a rather pathetic wimpy rule.  But
if you know that IBM has one of the largest prior art collections in
the world, and some of the best database searching technology, than you
know that for its patent applications, IBM could send in lots of relevant
prior art to help out a patent system that IBM knows is overworked and
underfunded (thanks to large corporations like IBM remaining silent while
the US Congress steals money from PTO fees every year).

In doing nothing beyond the bare minimum when applying for patents, 
and doing nothing to help the PTO do a better job (like helping the
PTO keep its monies, and help reform the system by toughening Rule
56 and other weak rules in the patent system), IBM is breaking no
laws and acting in its best own proprietary interests.  IBM does
nothing but that which helps IBM.  Indeed, software intellectual
property around the world has been a intellectual mess for forty years
because years ago, in its own self-interest, IBM used its considerable
influence to have (functionally, process/method-ish) software protected
by copyrights, an illogic under US laws, before deciding to back the
patenting of software.  In the US, we have spent the last forty years
gradually eliminating the illogic of software copyright (i.e. software
is all functional and process and method, which is explicitly banned for
copyright protection under US laws - I am not sure what the laws are
in Europe).  All because IBM does nothing but help IBM.

So their embrace of Linux should be examined very carefully.  It has
little to nothing to do with promoting open source.

Greg Aharonian