Re: [Patents] Anyone done the research: SCO, IBM and software patents.

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 roberto@dicosmo.org wrote:

> In particular, they are definitely not going to jeopardize their huge
> patents assets just because we claim that software patents are "bad".

  Software Patents are not just bad for software generally, but they are
incompatable with Free Software.  You can't support both software patents
and free software at the same time if you understand both concepts.  
While IBM may appear to support Free Software, their work lobbying for
unlimited patentability is proof of eithor:
  a) They don't understand one of software patents or Free Software.
  b) They do not support Free Software.


  IBM has a very large number of very smart people, so I tend to believe 
the latter rather than the former.

> But they can, and they are showing they understood it, use such
> powerful legal asset in the US to help protect open source software
> from empty lawsuits, while this commonality of goals persists.

  I heard this argument before and it was used to promote the nuclear arms 
race.   The whole "we need them to defend ourselves from other people who 
have them" argument holds no water when the real solution is to abolish 
them in the first place.

  Unlike nuclear weapons where they could be built by non-states, software 
patents are entirely a creation of the state and thus if governments get 
together to abolish them then software patents simply no longer exist.

  IBM is not an innocent actor in this that happens to have a patent
portfolio.  They are one of the largest and most politically powerful
private sector actors who are lobbying in support of expanding
patentability.

> What they did in the SCO case  is the next-best solution.

  They did not step in to protect us, but to out-do what SCO is doing.
SCO is claiming they own a part of the Linux kernel using copyright law.  
IBM seems to be claiming they own part of the Linux kernel using patent 
law.   Why is what IBM doing seen as a good thing just because they are 
doing it against someone we don't like?  If SCO was just claiming 
infringement against very specific individuals we didn't like, would what 
SCO is doing all of a sudden become OK?

  Verifying what methods these patents relate to is the research I wanted
to find out about.  Is it really a part of the Linux kernel that IBM is
claiming ownership over?

> Do not get me wrong: I do consider software patents harmful, and I 
> spent a lot of energy fighting them wherever possible, but while
> they are still there, we cannot ignore them and we have to deal with
> them.

  Software patents are still here largely with the lobbying work of IBM.  
If IBM was actually on our side in support of FLOSS (and thus against
software patents) it would be highly unlikely that software patents would
exist.

  http://swpat.ffii.org/players/ibm/

> I hope this may contribute to explain why not so many people raised
> in defence of SCO against IBM's threaten to use patent infringement
> as a retaliation to SCO's attack on the Linux kernel.

  Unfortunately it didn't explain things.  You just became yet another
person to defend IBM's attacks against FLOSS and Linux.  :-(

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/