f



IBM Gives "FOSS" Free Access to 500 Patents

  "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of
  its software patents freely available to anyone working
  on open-source projects, like the popular Linux operating
  system, on which programmers collaborate and share code...

  "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has
  pledged to seek no royalties..."

  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673

-- 
"Linux is subversive."
-- Eric S. Raymond.  "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/11/2005 9:09:22 AM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

43 Replies
434 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 31

begin  Error log for Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:09:22 -0700:  Hamilcar Barca
caused a Page Fault at address
<20050111040852.264$8A@news.newsreader.com>, details...

>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of its software
>   patents freely available to anyone working on open-source projects,
>   like the popular Linux operating system, on which programmers
>   collaborate and share code...
> 
>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to
>   seek no royalties..."
> 
>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673

IBM is proving to be the "favorite Uncle" for Linux and OSS.

I was a little skeptical about their involvement at first, but now I
really appreciate their participation.

-- 
rapskat -  06:43:56 up 2 days, 21:25,  2 users,  load average: 0.60, 0.75, 0.74
October 12, the Discovery.
It was wonderful to find America, but it would have been more wonderful to miss
it.
		-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

0
rapskat (1102)
1/11/2005 11:46:59 AM
rapskat poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

>>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of its software
>>   patents freely available to anyone working on open-source projects,
>>   like the popular Linux operating system, on which programmers
>>   collaborate and share code...
>> 
>>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to
>>   seek no royalties..."
>> 
>>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
>
> IBM is proving to be the "favorite Uncle" for Linux and OSS.
>
> I was a little skeptical about their involvement at first, but now I
> really appreciate their participation.

Of course, they can always pull a Fraunhofer (MP3 royalties scam) later.

Although here they'd be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

-- 
Microsoft... we're gonna go through 'em like crap through a goose!
0
iso
1/11/2005 12:18:10 PM
Lin�nut wrote:

> rapskat poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
>>>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of its software
>>>   patents freely available to anyone working on open-source projects,
>>>   like the popular Linux operating system, on which programmers
>>>   collaborate and share code...
>>> 
>>>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to
>>>   seek no royalties..."
>>> 
>>>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
>>
>> IBM is proving to be the "favorite Uncle" for Linux and OSS.
>>
>> I was a little skeptical about their involvement at first, but now I
>> really appreciate their participation.
> 
> Of course, they can always pull a Fraunhofer (MP3 royalties scam) later.

That's questionable. First, patents have limited life, and the age of these
patents is not clear. Second, if there is a written authorization to use
them freely, it is unlikely that legal action would be successful, and IBM
seldom acts without a clear and unambiguous liklihood of success.

> 
> Although here they'd be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.
> 

I think they really *get* that, its an interresting time.

0
mlw (2191)
1/11/2005 4:18:19 PM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:18:19 -0500, mlw wrote:

> Lin�nut wrote:
> 
>> rapskat poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>> 
>>>>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of its software
>>>>   patents freely available to anyone working on open-source projects,
>>>>   like the popular Linux operating system, on which programmers
>>>>   collaborate and share code...
>>>> 
>>>>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to
>>>>   seek no royalties..."
>>>> 
>>>>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
>>>
>>> IBM is proving to be the "favorite Uncle" for Linux and OSS.
>>>
>>> I was a little skeptical about their involvement at first, but now I
>>> really appreciate their participation.
>> 
>> Of course, they can always pull a Fraunhofer (MP3 royalties scam) later.
> 
> That's questionable. First, patents have limited life, and the age of these
> patents is not clear. Second, if there is a written authorization to use
> them freely, it is unlikely that legal action would be successful, and IBM
> seldom acts without a clear and unambiguous liklihood of success.

It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
mind'?  

I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
worthless anyways?
0
erik38 (8626)
1/11/2005 4:45:51 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hamilcar Barca
<hamilcar@tld.always.invalid>
 wrote
on Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:09:22 -0700
<20050111040852.264$8A@news.newsreader.com>:
>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of
>   its software patents freely available to anyone working
>   on open-source projects, like the popular Linux operating
>   system, on which programmers collaborate and share code...
>
>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has
>   pledged to seek no royalties..."
>
>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
>

And this is going to be enforced precisely how?  However, it's
otherwise a nice gesture.

(Unfortunately, the article appears temporarily slashdotted.)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
0
ewill (4394)
1/11/2005 5:00:21 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
> patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
> worthless anyways?

You'd be skeptical since thats what your paid to do.

Why only 500?

Probably because they cover areas of IP that IBM expects other firms to 
try to assert claims on, or because they cover areas of development that 
IBM see's becoming useful or valuable to their business model.


 From the PDF:

[In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party 
will take advantage of this pledge and then assert patents or other 
intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source Software, 
thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software 
developer to create innovative software programs, or the freedom of 
others to distribute and use Open Source Software, the commitment not to 
assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all counterparts of these 
patents issued in other countries is irrevocable except that IBM 
reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only 
with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other 
intellectual property rights against Open Source Software]

So not only do they make it irrevocable, they make it so that the only 
people it will bite in the ass, are those who attempt to SUE OSS 
developers asserting patents or IP.

So OSS can use the 500, and companies can too, if they open source, but 
if any company tries to fsck with OSS development, IBM revokes THEIR 
rights, not everyones.


-- 
My other computer is your XP box.
0
callanca (1273)
1/11/2005 6:08:29 PM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
> royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
> mind'?  
> 
> I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
> patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
> worthless anyways?

Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
That's a good thing.

The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:

"the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"

The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
property rights against Open Source Software".

Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
software must be considered public domain.

Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.

So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
rights, you can't get the patents.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/11/2005 6:19:19 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> 
>>It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>>royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>>mind'?  
>>
>>I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>>patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>>worthless anyways?
> 
> 
> Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
> ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
> That's a good thing.
> 
> The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
> 
> "the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
> counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
> except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
> commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
> patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
> 
> The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
> property rights against Open Source Software".
> 
> Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
> copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
> GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
> this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
> software must be considered public domain.
> 
> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
> likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
> this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
> 
> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
> rights, you can't get the patents.

Uhh, no Erik,

"only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"

AGAINST!

Fuckwit.
-- 
My other computer is your XP box.
0
callanca (1273)
1/11/2005 6:33:06 PM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:33:06 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>>>royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>>>mind'?  
>>>
>>>I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>>>patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>>>worthless anyways?
>> 
>> 
>> Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
>> ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
>> That's a good thing.
>> 
>> The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>> 
>> "the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>> counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>> except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>> commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>> patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>> 
>> The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>> property rights against Open Source Software".
>> 
>> Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
>> copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
>> GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
>> this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
>> software must be considered public domain.
>> 
>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
>> likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
>> this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>> 
>> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>> rights, you can't get the patents.
> 
> Uhh, no Erik,
> 
> "only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
> other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
> 
> AGAINST!
> 
> Fuckwit.

Let me spell it out for you, since you appear to be too stupid to
comprehend.

Open Source developer A who wrote software X that uses IBM patented
technology writes software Y and releases under the GPL.  Open Source
developer B comes along, copies A's code, doesn't attribute anything to
them, and releases it under the BSD license as software Z.

Now, A can't sue B for violating their copyright because in doing so,
they'd lose their rights to the IBM technology in their OTHER software
products.

Get it now?
0
erik38 (8626)
1/11/2005 6:56:14 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:33:06 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
> 
> 
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>>>>royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>>>>mind'?  
>>>>
>>>>I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>>>>patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>>>>worthless anyways?
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
>>>ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
>>>That's a good thing.
>>>
>>>The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>>>
>>>"the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>>>counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>>>except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>>>commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>>>patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>>
>>>The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>>>property rights against Open Source Software".
>>>
>>>Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
>>>copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
>>>GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
>>>this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
>>>software must be considered public domain.
>>>
>>>Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>>licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
>>>likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
>>>this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>>>
>>>So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>>>source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>>>rights, you can't get the patents.
>>
>>Uhh, no Erik,
>>
>>"only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
>>other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>
>>AGAINST!
>>
>>Fuckwit.
> 
> 
> Let me spell it out for you, since you appear to be too stupid to
> comprehend.
> 
> Open Source developer A who wrote software X that uses IBM patented
> technology writes software Y and releases under the GPL.  Open Source
> developer B comes along, copies A's code, doesn't attribute anything to
> them, and releases it under the BSD license as software Z.
> 
> Now, A can't sue B for violating their copyright because in doing so,
> they'd lose their rights to the IBM technology in their OTHER software
> products.
> 
> Get it now?

'Doesn't attribute anything' =

Unable to use BSD license, and they are in violation of copyright law.

I love how you try to find a hypothetical that will help you FUD, but it 
isn't going to happen. Provided a company releases under a OSI approved 
license, IBM won't do anything.

Company A can sue B all they want, since its their code under copyright, 
and IBM will only get involved if the /LAWSUIT/ is AGAINST OSS, your 
hypothetical B is not only in violation of the BSD license for not 
giving attribution, but since the original was under GPL, they couldn't 
just 'take it' and re-release it BSD, their breaking the law no matter 
what.

They aren't a 'Open Source Software' entity if they violate the GPL and 
BSD licenses like that.

-- 
My other computer is your XP box.
0
callanca (1273)
1/11/2005 7:13:39 PM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:13:39 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:33:06 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>>>>>royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>>>>>mind'?  
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>>>>>patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>>>>>worthless anyways?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
>>>>ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
>>>>That's a good thing.
>>>>
>>>>The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>>>>
>>>>"the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>>>>counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>>>>except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>>>>commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>>>>patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>>>
>>>>The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>>>>property rights against Open Source Software".
>>>>
>>>>Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
>>>>copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
>>>>GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
>>>>this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
>>>>software must be considered public domain.
>>>>
>>>>Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>>>licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
>>>>likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
>>>>this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>>>>
>>>>So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>>>>source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>>>>rights, you can't get the patents.
>>>
>>>Uhh, no Erik,
>>>
>>>"only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
>>>other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>>
>>>AGAINST!
>>>
>>>Fuckwit.
>> 
>> 
>> Let me spell it out for you, since you appear to be too stupid to
>> comprehend.
>> 
>> Open Source developer A who wrote software X that uses IBM patented
>> technology writes software Y and releases under the GPL.  Open Source
>> developer B comes along, copies A's code, doesn't attribute anything to
>> them, and releases it under the BSD license as software Z.
>> 
>> Now, A can't sue B for violating their copyright because in doing so,
>> they'd lose their rights to the IBM technology in their OTHER software
>> products.
>> 
>> Get it now?
> 
> 'Doesn't attribute anything' =
> 
> Unable to use BSD license, and they are in violation of copyright law.

Of course they are, but the point is, The vendor that owns the copyright
would be unable to enforce their copyright, or they would lose their
license to use IBM technology.

IBM's license is too simplistic, and makes no differentiation between
legitimate and illigitimate lawsuits.  Further, it's "any other
intellectual property" clause makes it too broad to be workable.

> I love how you try to find a hypothetical that will help you FUD, but it 
> isn't going to happen. Provided a company releases under a OSI approved 
> license, IBM won't do anything.

Now you're back at the mercy of IBM to not enforce it's patents, which it
may well not do, but the legally binding license is no longer valid.

> Company A can sue B all they want, since its their code under copyright, 
> and IBM will only get involved if the /LAWSUIT/ is AGAINST OSS, your 
> hypothetical B is not only in violation of the BSD license for not 
> giving attribution, but since the original was under GPL, they couldn't 
> just 'take it' and re-release it BSD, their breaking the law no matter 
> what.

You seem to be confused.  You wouldn't be in violation of the BSD license,
because the BSD license only requiers attribution of BSD licensed code, not
other licensed code.

Yes, you would be in violation of the GPL, but since the GPL is enfoced by
copyright, which is an Intellectual Property right, sueing to assert that
right makes you in violation of the IBM patent license, even if you have a
valid claim.

> They aren't a 'Open Source Software' entity if they violate the GPL and 
> BSD licenses like that.

Sure they are.  They released their code under a BSD license, and they're
not violating the BSD license.  They're only violating the GPL license,
which will be unenforceable because doing so would make the GPL licensor
liable to IBM.

Further, since the IBM license provides additional restrictions on it, it
would likely not be compatible with the GPL in the first place, since the
GPL requires patent rights to be licensed to everyone, or nobody at all.

What it boils down to is that this move is moot.  Nobody will want to give
up their right to enforce their copyrights, even against other open source
developers, just to take advantage of IBM's license.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/11/2005 7:35:07 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> What it boils down to is that this move is moot.  Nobody will want to give
> up their right to enforce their copyrights, even against other open source
> developers, just to take advantage of IBM's license.

What it boils down is that your a fuckwit who doesn't understand the 
difference between a PLEDGE, and a LICENSE.

This is not a 'license' and therefore doesnt violate the GPL requirements.

I think IBM's lawyers know a fuck of a lot more about copyright/patent 
law and how they will/wont enforce it than a MS Shill.

-- 
My other computer is your XP box.
0
callanca (1273)
1/11/2005 7:50:58 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:18:19 -0500, mlw wrote:
> 
>> Lin�nut wrote:
>> 
>>> rapskat poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>> 
>>>>>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of its
>>>>>   software patents freely available to anyone working on open-source
>>>>>   projects, like the popular Linux operating system, on which
>>>>>   programmers collaborate and share code...
>>>>> 
>>>>>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has pledged to
>>>>>   seek no royalties..."
>>>>> 
>>>>>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
>>>>
>>>> IBM is proving to be the "favorite Uncle" for Linux and OSS.
>>>>
>>>> I was a little skeptical about their involvement at first, but now I
>>>> really appreciate their participation.
>>> 
>>> Of course, they can always pull a Fraunhofer (MP3 royalties scam) later.
>> 
>> That's questionable. First, patents have limited life, and the age of
>> these patents is not clear. Second, if there is a written authorization
>> to use them freely, it is unlikely that legal action would be successful,
>> and IBM seldom acts without a clear and unambiguous liklihood of success.
> 
> It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
> royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
> mind'?
> 
> I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  

Patents have limited life.

0
mlw (2191)
1/11/2005 7:57:44 PM
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:19:19 -0600,
 Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>> royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>> mind'?  
>> 
>> I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>> patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>> worthless anyways?
>
> Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
> ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
> That's a good thing.
>
> The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>
> "the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
> counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
> except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
> commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
> patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>
> The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
> property rights against Open Source Software".
>
> Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
> copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
> GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
> this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
> software must be considered public domain.
>


No. It means that if you *attack* a GPL (for example) project on
copyright grounds, IBM *may* revoke your access to said patents. 

> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
> likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
> this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>
> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
> rights, you can't get the patents.

more Erikbabble

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB5DDxd90bcYOAWPYRAoaKAJ4gyB9B+/qM7txWGlaHNm2JzII3bQCfYZjK
5uJY/ZoKpKl5rkoFcrLJtaY=
=/LvP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
Jim Richardson     http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?
0
warlock (9522)
1/11/2005 8:02:57 PM
In article <pan.2005.01.11.11.46.53.814636@rapskat.com> (Tue, 11 Jan 2005
06:46:59 -0500), rapskat wrote:

> begin  Error log for Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:09:22 -0700:  Hamilcar Barca
> caused a Page Fault at address
> <20050111040852.264$8A@news.newsreader.com>, details...
> 
>>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673
> 
> I was a little skeptical about their involvement at first, but now I
> really appreciate their participation.

Your skepticism was and is warranted.  I also appreciate what they're
doing, and it's some of the best anti-FUD to date.
0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/11/2005 8:50:36 PM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:50:58 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> 
>> What it boils down to is that this move is moot.  Nobody will want to give
>> up their right to enforce their copyrights, even against other open source
>> developers, just to take advantage of IBM's license.
> 
> What it boils down is that your a fuckwit who doesn't understand the 
> difference between a PLEDGE, and a LICENSE.
> 
> This is not a 'license' and therefore doesnt violate the GPL requirements.
> 
> I think IBM's lawyers know a fuck of a lot more about copyright/patent 
> law and how they will/wont enforce it than a MS Shill.

It's a license.  IBM themselves say that it's legally binding.  If you
issue a legally binding document that allows someone to use your
intellectual property, it's a license.  No matter what you call it.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/11/2005 9:39:46 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 19:50:58 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
> 
> 
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>>What it boils down to is that this move is moot.  Nobody will want to give
>>>up their right to enforce their copyrights, even against other open source
>>>developers, just to take advantage of IBM's license.
>>
>>What it boils down is that your a fuckwit who doesn't understand the 
>>difference between a PLEDGE, and a LICENSE.
>>
>>This is not a 'license' and therefore doesnt violate the GPL requirements.
>>
>>I think IBM's lawyers know a fuck of a lot more about copyright/patent 
>>law and how they will/wont enforce it than a MS Shill.
> 
> 
> It's a license.  IBM themselves say that it's legally binding.  If you
> issue a legally binding document that allows someone to use your
> intellectual property, it's a license.  No matter what you call it.

Whatever Erik, IBM says:

[Subjected to the exception provided below, and with the intent that 
developers, users and distributors of Open Source Software *RELY ON OUR 
PROMISE*, IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents 
listed above, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in 
other countries against the development, use or distributions of Open 
Source Software.]

*Emphasis Mine*

It's a pledge, they arent LICENSING you the right to use the patents, 
they are just promising that they will not USE THEM AGAINST OSS.

And later, this line further proves it:

'reserves the right to terminate THIS PATENT PLEDGE AND COMMITMENT only 
with regard'

It's not a LICENSE, it's a pledge. It's legally binding since its a 
public statement of intent, and that always counts in court.

Maybe you should actually READ it:

http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf

-- 
My other computer is your XP box.
0
callanca (1273)
1/11/2005 10:27:43 PM
Philip Callan wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
>> I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.��Even�so,�why�only�500�of
>> their
>> patents?��Why�not�the�whole�boatload?��Are�these�500�patents�essentially
>> worthless anyways?

I have another skeptical view - is it possible they've done this to use as
another weapon against SCO ;-)

> 
> You'd be skeptical since thats what your paid to do.
> 
> Why only 500?

Maybe these are the ones easiest to prove SCO have violated them?

> Probably because they cover areas of IP that IBM expects other firms to
> try to assert claims on, or because they cover areas of development that
> IBM see's becoming useful or valuable to their business model.

Or their ongoing court case against SCO

> So not only do they make it irrevocable, they make it so that the only
> people it will bite in the ass, are those who attempt to SUE OSS
> developers asserting patents or IP.

And Who is already trying to do this, therefore have already lost their
rights to use IBM's patents - yes that would be SCO

> So OSS can use the 500, and companies can too, if they open source, but
> if any company tries to fsck with OSS development, IBM revokes THEIR
> rights, not everyones.

IBM gain another anti-SCO weapon, SCO's mis-management get another laundry
bill for their underwear.
0
1/12/2005 12:25:09 AM

Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:19:19 -0600,
>  Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>>>royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>>>mind'?  
>>>
>>>I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>>>patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>>>worthless anyways?
>>
>>Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
>>ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
>>That's a good thing.
>>
>>The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>>
>>"the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>>counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>>except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>>commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>>patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>
>>The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>>property rights against Open Source Software".
>>
>>Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
>>copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
>>GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
>>this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
>>software must be considered public domain.
>>
> 
> 
> 
> No. It means that if you *attack* a GPL (for example) project on
> copyright grounds, IBM *may* revoke your access to said patents. 
> 
> 
>>Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
>>likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
>>this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>>
>>So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>>source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>>rights, you can't get the patents.

Aren't they being mean to SCO?

Colin Day

0
cday3 (551)
1/12/2005 12:42:59 AM
On 2005-01-11, Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> sputtered:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

>> "the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>> counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>> except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>> commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>> patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>> 
>> The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>> property rights against Open Source Software".

>> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>> rights, you can't get the patents.
>
> Uhh, no Erik,
>
> "only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
> other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>
> AGAINST!
>
> Fuckwit.

I used to believe Ewik was too stupid to read and understand. I now
know Ewik knows *exactly* what he's reading and lying about.

-- 
"I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect
that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need
an interpreter.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
1/12/2005 3:02:39 AM
Sinister Midget wrote:
> On 2005-01-11, Philip Callan <callanca@shaw.ca> sputtered:
> 
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> 
>>>"the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>>>counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>>>except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>>>commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>>>patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>>
>>>The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>>>property rights against Open Source Software".
> 
> 
>>>So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>>>source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>>>rights, you can't get the patents.
>>
>>Uhh, no Erik,
>>
>>"only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
>>other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>
>>AGAINST!
>>
>>Fuckwit.
> 
> 
> I used to believe Ewik was too stupid to read and understand. I now
> know Ewik knows *exactly* what he's reading and lying about.
> 

Of course, he's paid to, he should.

-- 
My other computer is your XP box.
0
callanca (1273)
1/12/2005 3:54:26 AM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>> royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>> mind'?  
>> 
>> I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>> patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>> worthless anyways?
>
> Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
> ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
> That's a good thing.
>
> The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>
> "the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
> counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
> except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
> commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
> patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>
> The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
> property rights against Open Source Software".
>
> Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
> copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
> GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
> this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
> software must be considered public domain.

Erik, I agree that the clause is odd, but you are utterly wrong that
your software must be considered public domain.  It says (at best)
that you may lose the right to the patents if you sue any *Open
Source Software* project over IP.  It doesn't say that you cannot sue
non-OSS projects over IP.

Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
considered public domain".  

> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  

Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
their use in GPL'ed products.

> Adding a restriction such as this is likely to not comply with the
> GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about this, even though it
> appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>
> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
> rights, you can't get the patents.

Utter nonsense.

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes

"Love songs suck and losing you ain't worth a damn."
                                  -- The poetry of Bad Livers
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 6:54:49 AM
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:49 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Erik, I agree that the clause is odd, but you are utterly wrong that
> your software must be considered public domain.  It says (at best)
> that you may lose the right to the patents if you sue any *Open
> Source Software* project over IP.  It doesn't say that you cannot sue
> non-OSS projects over IP.

I wasn't talking about non-OSS.  

> Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
> losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
> considered public domain".  

If you want to keep your rights to IBM's patents, you are essentially never
going to enforce your own copyrights (at least against other OSS projects).
Since you won't enforce them, those OSS projects need not worry about
violating the terms of your license.  You won't sue them.

>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  
> 
> Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
> their use in GPL'ed products.

Yes, it does.  Read it again.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/12/2005 7:05:56 AM
In article <87sm5787d2.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:49
+0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> 
>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  
> 
> Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
> their use in GPL'ed products.

Erik's quoting from the GPL.

>> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>> rights, you can't get the patents.
> 
> Utter nonsense.

Positively.

-- 
"It's not like IBM can support Linux the way they support the mainframe
 operating system. They don't write the code for it."
-- Steve Ballmer.  http://news.com.com/2008-1082-998297.html.  25 Apr 2003

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/12/2005 7:08:12 AM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:33:06 GMT, Philip Callan wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:45:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>It's definately an interesting development.  The question is, is this
>>>>royaly free license ad-infinitum?  Can it expire, and then 'change their
>>>>mind'?  
>>>>
>>>>I'd be skeptical unless it was ad-infitum.  Even so, why only 500 of their
>>>>patents?  Why not the whole boatload?  Are these 500 patents essentially
>>>>worthless anyways?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Well, I just had the chance to read the license, and it does appear to be
>>> ad-infinitum (though those words aren't used, there is also no expiration).
>>> That's a good thing.
>>> 
>>> The bad news, is that it's basically useless.  Here's the relevant wording:
>>> 
>>> "the commitment not to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all
>>> counterparts of these patents issued in other countries is irrevocable
>>> except that IBM reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and
>>> commitment only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting
>>> patents or other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>>> 
>>> The key words are in the last bit, "asserting patents or other intellectual
>>> property rights against Open Source Software".
>>> 
>>> Since copyright is an Intellectual Property right, that means if you assert
>>> copyright rights, you are violating the terms of this license.  Since the
>>> GPL and other licenses are based on copyright, that means if you accept
>>> this license, you can't enforce your own copyrights and licenses, thus your
>>> software must be considered public domain.
>>> 
>>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  Adding a restriction such as this is
>>> likely to not comply with the GPL.  I'm sure we'll hear from RMS soon about
>>> this, even though it appears on the surface to be good for Free software.
>>> 
>>> So it's really a catch-22.  "You get our patents if you abide by any open
>>> source license", but since open source licenses are an assertion of IP
>>> rights, you can't get the patents.
>> 
>> Uhh, no Erik,
>> 
>> "only with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or 
>> other intellectual property rights against Open Source Software"
>> 
>> AGAINST!
>> 
>> Fuckwit.
>
> Let me spell it out for you, since you appear to be too stupid to
> comprehend.
>
> Open Source developer A who wrote software X that uses IBM patented
> technology writes software Y and releases under the GPL.  Open Source
> developer B comes along, copies A's code, doesn't attribute anything to
> them, and releases it under the BSD license as software Z.
>
> Now, A can't sue B for violating their copyright because in doing so,
> they'd lose their rights to the IBM technology in their OTHER software
> products.

But even that's not true.  IBM reserves the right to withdraw A's
right to use the patents, but is under no obligation to do so and did
not claim it would do so in every case.  A could certainly talk to IBM
about this prior to suing B and get a commitment not to withdraw the
patent rights (but the license does not appear to guarantee such a
commitment).

Furthermore, even assuming that IBM did withdraw A's right in every
such case, then A still has a somewhat limited ability to defend his
copyright.  He is still able to defend it from any non-OSS
infringement, and thus it is simply stupid to say that A's software
"must be considered public domain."

This clause is simply IBM's weapon to use against lawsuits that they
find unnecessarily threatening to OSS.  I don't see any guarantee that
this clause won't be abused, but I'm certainly not worried that it
will be abused.  And I certainly do not read it as saying that anyone
that sues and OSS developer will lose his rights to the patents.  

> Get it now?

No.  Your claims are indefensible.  
-- 
Jesse F. Hughes

"We will run this with the same kind of openness that we've run
Windows."  Steve Ballmer, speaking about MS's new ".Net" project.
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 8:08:39 AM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:49 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Erik, I agree that the clause is odd, but you are utterly wrong that
>> your software must be considered public domain.  It says (at best)
>> that you may lose the right to the patents if you sue any *Open
>> Source Software* project over IP.  It doesn't say that you cannot sue
>> non-OSS projects over IP.
>
> I wasn't talking about non-OSS.  

But you said "your software must be considered public domain."  Such
an exaggerated claim clearly does not exclude non-OSS infringement.

>> Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
>> losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
>> considered public domain".  
>
> If you want to keep your rights to IBM's patents, you are essentially never
> going to enforce your own copyrights (at least against other OSS projects).
> Since you won't enforce them, those OSS projects need not worry about
> violating the terms of your license.  You won't sue them.

And I don't believe this.  IBM did not say: sue and you will lose all
your rights.  They did say: sue and we *may* take away your right to use
our patents.  

If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
their patents.  I wouldn't be worried personally, however, since I see
no reason for IBM to do this.  I see this clause as a tool to
discourage lawsuits that they don't like (like, oh, say SCO's), but I
don't see them as opposing the right of OSS developers to assert their
legitimate IP rights regarding other developers.

>
>>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  
>> 
>> Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
>> their use in GPL'ed products.
>
> Yes, it does.  Read it again.

Well, maybe I'll eat my words, but could you quote the section you're
thinking of?

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes

"I have written many words to sci.math, some of them are not even
meaningless." --Ross Finlayson
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 8:14:38 AM
Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> writes:

> In article <87sm5787d2.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:49
> +0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  
>> 
>> Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
>> their use in GPL'ed products.
>
> Erik's quoting from the GPL.

Is he?  Where?

I don't see quotation marks.  You mean the part "patent rights must be
licensed to everyone, or none at all?"

Anyway, if you say so then I withdraw my claim there.  Guess I was
talking out my ass on that point, but I'm confident the rest of my
post stands.

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes
"My experience indicates that the people who post on this newsgroup
are about at the level of a 10 year old in the year 2060."
                    -- More wisdom from James Harris, time traveler
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 8:16:28 AM
begin  Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

< snip >
 
>> Get it now?
> 
> No.  Your claims are indefensible.

Eriks claims generally are. He does not even try to defend them himself, but
just runs away from them.

Right, Erik?
-- 
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is NO

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
1/12/2005 8:26:23 AM
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 02:09:22 -0700, Hamilcar Barca wrote:

>   "I.B.M. plans to announce today that it is making 500 of
>   its software patents freely available to anyone working
>   on open-source projects, like the popular Linux operating
>   system, on which programmers collaborate and share code...
> 
>   "I.B.M. will continue to hold the 500 patents. But it has
>   pledged to seek no royalties..."
> 
>   http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050110235654673

As IBM published the 500 patents in pdf, but doesn't hold the 
patent on pdf here comes :

IBM Statement of Non-Assertion of Named Patents Against OSS

IBM is committed to promoting innovation for the benefit of our 
customers and for the overall growth and advancement of the information 
technology field. IBM takes many actions to promote innovation. Today, 
we are announcing a new innovation initiative. We are pledging the free 
use of 500 of our U.S. patents, as well as all counterparts of these 
patents issued in other countries, in the development, distribution, 
and use of open source software. We believe that the open source 
community has been at the forefront of innovation and we are taking 
this action to encourage additional innovation for open platforms.

The following is the text of our pledge. It is our intent that this 
pledge be legally binding and enforceable by any open source software 
developer, distributor, or user who uses one or more of the 500 listed 
U.S. patents and/or the counterparts of these patents issued in other 
countries.

IBM's Legally Binding Commitment Not To Assert the 500 Named Patents 
Against OSS

The pledge will benefit any Open Source Software. Open Source Software 
is any computer software program whose source code is published and 
available for inspection and use by anyone, and is made available under 
a license agreement that permits recipients to copy, modify and 
distribute the programes source code without payment of fees or 
royalties. All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their 
website as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the 
purpose of this pledge..

IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed 
below, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other 
countries, against the development, use or distribution of Open Source 
Software.

In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party 
will take advantage of this pledge and then assert patents or other 
intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source Software, 
thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software 
developer to create innovative software programs, the commitment not to 
assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all counterparts of these 
patents issued in other countries is irrevocable except that IBM 
reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only 
with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other 
intellectual property rights against Open Source Software.

Please click here for IBMs legally binding commitment that you may 
print for your records.

Publication Title
US6317811 Method and system for reissuing load requests in a 
          multi-stream prefetch design
US6298435 Methods and apparatus for exploiting virtual buffers to 
          increase instruction parallelism in a pipelined processor
US6298417 Pipelined cache memory deallocation and storeback
US6286094 Method and system for optimizing the fetching of dispatch 
          groups in a superscalar processor
US6279105 Pipelined two-cycle branch target address cache
US6266767 Apparatus and method for facilitating out-of-order execution 
          of load instructions
US6240474 Pipelined read transfers
US6237081 Queuing method and apparatus for facilitating the rejection 
          of sequential instructions in a processor
US6219743 Apparatus for dynamic resource mapping for isolating 
          interrupt sources and method therefore
US6202128 Method and system for pre-fetch cache interrogation using 
          snoop port
US6189065 Method and apparatus for interrupt load balancing for powerPC 
          processors
US5659722 Multiple condition code branching system in a multi-processor 
          environment
US5655141 Method and system for storing information in a processing 
          system
US5644779 Processing system and method of operation for concurrent 
          processing of branch instructions with canceling of processing of a 
          branch instruction
US5619408 Method and system for recoding noneffective instructions 
          within a data processing system
US5615360 Method for interfacing applications with a content 
          addressable memory
US5253349 Decreasing processing time for type 1 dyadic instructions
US5224215 Message queue processing among cooperative processors having 
          significant speed differences

Interfacing

Publication Title
US6237067 System and method for handling storage consistency conflict
US6230219 High performance multichannel DMA controller for a PCI host 
          bridge with a built-in cache
US6219737 Read request performance of a multiple set buffer pool bus 
          bridge
US5671370 Alternating data valid control signals for high performance 
          data transfer
US5659696 Method and apparatus for determining address location and 
          taking one of two actions depending on the type of read/write data 
          transfer required
US5634007 Independent computer storage addressing in input/output 
          transfers
US5613163 Method and system for predefined suspension and resumption 
          control over I/O programs
US5224213 Ping-pong data buffer for transferring data from one data bus 
          to another data bus
US5195185 Dynamic bus arbitration with concurrent same bus granting 
          every cycle

Storage Management

Publication Title
US6334172 Cache coherency protocol with tagged state for modified values
US6311253 Methods for caching cache tags
US6304939 Token mechanism for cache-line replacement within a cache 
          memory having redundant cache lines
US6275908 Cache coherency protocol including an HR state
US6272603 Cache coherency protocol having hovering (H), recent (R), and 
          tagged (T) states
US6272601 Critical word forwarding in a multiprocessor system
US6263407 Cache coherency protocol including a hovering (H) state 
          having a precise mode and an imprecise mode
US6240489 Method for implementing a pseudo least recent used (LRU) 
          mechanism in a four-way cache memory within a data processing system
US6226725 Method and system in a data processing system for the 
          dedication of memory storage locations
US6222752 Dynamic word line driver for cache
US6212616 Even/odd cache directory mechanism
US6202132 Flexible cache-coherency mechanism
US6182201 Demand-based issuance of cache operations to a system bus
US5694573 Shared L2 support for inclusion property in split L1 data and 
          instruction caches
US5692151 High performance/low cost access hazard detection in pipelined
          cache controller using comparators with a width shorter than 
          and independent of total width of memory address
US5687350 Protocol and system for performing line-fill address during 
          copy-back operation
US5684976 Method and system for reduced address tags storage within a 
          directory having a tree-like data structure
US5668972 Method and system for efficient miss sequence cache line 
          allocation utilizing an allocation control cell state to enable a 
          selected match line
US5664150 Computer system with a device for selectively blocking 
          writebacks of data from a writeback cache to memory
US5664147 System and method that progressively prefetches additional 
          lines to a distributed stream buffer as the sequentiality of the
          memory accessing is demonstrated
US5659710 Cache coherency method and system employing serially encoded 
          snoop responses
US5659699 Method and system for managing cache memory utilizing 
          multiple hash functions
US5651136 System and method for increasing cache efficiency through 
          optimized data allocation
US5642491 Method for expanding addressable memory range in real-mode 
          processing to facilitate loading of large programs into high memory
US5640534 Method and system for concurrent access in a data cache array 
          utilizing multiple match line selection paths
US5640526 Superscaler instruction pipeline having boundary 
          identification logic for variable length instructions
US5627993 Methods and systems for merging data during cache checking 
          and write-back cycles for memory reads and writes
US5625793 Automatic cache bypass for instructions exhibiting poor cache 
          hit ratio
US5625787 Superscalar instruction pipeline using alignment logic responsive
          to boundary identification logic for aligning and appending 
          variable length instructions to instructions stored in cache
US5623632 System and method for improving multilevel cache performance 
          in a multiprocessing system
US5615168 Method and apparatus for synchronized pipeline data access of 
          a memory system
US5613086 Method and system for locking a page of real storage using a 
          virtual address
US5603011 Selective shadowing and paging in computer memory systems
US5594876 Arbitration protocol for a bidirectional bus for handling 
          access requests to a logically divided memory in a multiprocessor
          system
US5247647 Detection of deletion of stored data by concurrently 
          executing processes in a multiprocessing data processing system
US5228136 Method and apparatus to maintain cache coherency in a
          multiprocessor system with each processor's private cache updating
          or invalidating its contents based upon set activity
US5220669 Linkage mechanism for program isolation

Multi-Processing 

Publication Title
US6253372 Determining a communication schedule between processors
US6247091 Method and system for communicating interrupts between nodes 
          of a multinode computer system
US6230206 System for internode deadlock avoidance in parallel database 
          system using as overflow buffer a temporary table storage allocated
          to the parallel database application program being executed
US6226695 Information handling system including non-disruptive command 
          and data movement between storage and one or more auxiliary processors
US5682491 Selective processing and routing of results among processors 
          controlled by decoding instructions using mask value derived from 
          instruction tag and processor identifier
US5680402 Priority broadcast and multi-cast for unbuffered multi-stage 
          networks
US5659757 Method and system for lock instrumentation in a data 
          processing system
US5655103 System and method for handling stale data in a multiprocessor 
          system
US5652864 Concurrent storage allocations or returns without need to 
          lock free storage chain
US5649135 Parallel processing system and method using surrogate 
          instructions
US5274782 Method and apparatus for dynamic detection and routing of 
          non-uniform traffic in parallel buffered multistage interconnection 
          networks
US5247616 Computer system having different communications facilities 
          and data transfer processes between different computers
US5204954 Remote storage management mechanism and method
US5185861 Cache affinity scheduler

Data Processing Programming

Publication Title
US6324631 Method and system for detecting and coalescing free areas 
          during garbage collection
US6305014 Lifetime-sensitive instruction scheduling mechanism and method
US6301652 Instruction cache alignment mechanism for branch targets 
          based on predicted execution frequencies
US6292843 Quick loading of run time dynamic link library for OS/2
US6292795 Indexed file system and a method and a mechanism for 
          accessing data records from such a system
US6275986 Compile-time data dependency verification
US6266808 Computer program product for enabling the construction of 
          dialogs for commands and templates
US6263498 Method and apparatus for enabling server side distributed 
          object modification
US6260075 System and method for providing shared global offset table 
          for common shared library in a computer system
US6249911 Optimizing compiler for generating store instructions having 
          memory hierarchy control bits
US6249906 Adaptive method and system to minimize the effect of long 
          table walks
US6249852 Method for heap management of fixed sized objects using pages
US6223341 Computer-program compilers comprising a program augmentation 
          capability
US6223200 System and method for reducing research time through a lock 
          wait matrix
US6216143 Apparatus and method for generating animated color coded 
          software traces
US6199160 Computer system and method for performing multiple tasks
US6195710 Operating system having shared personality neutral resources
US6173444 Optimizing compilation of pointer variables in the presence 
          of indirect function calls
US5701486 Tracing technique for application programs using protect mode 
          addressing
US5692156 Computer program product for overflow queue processing
US5687327 System and method for allocating bus resources in a data 
          processing system
US5684992 User console and computer operating system asynchronous 
          interaction interface
US5675795 Boot architecture for microkernel-based systems
US5675767 Method for verification and restoration of directories in CPU 
          system managed store
US5671441 Method and apparatus for automatic generation of I/O 
          configuration descriptions
US5669001 Object code compatible representation of very long 
          instruction word programs
US5668958 Heterogeneous filing system with common API and reconciled 
          file management rules
US5664190 System and method for enabling an event driven interface to a 
          procedural program
US5664186 Computer file management and backup system
US5659752 System and method for improving branch prediction in compiled 
          program code
US5655101 Accessing remote data objects in a distributed memory environment
          using parallel address locations at each local memory to reference
          a same data object
US5651139 Protected system partition read/write access on a SCSI 
          controlled DASD
US5642506 Method and apparatus for initializing a multiprocessor system
US5640568 Inline expansion method for programming languages having 
          array functions
US5628023 Virtual storage computer system having methods and apparatus for
          providing token-controlled access to protected pages of memory via
          a token-accessible view
US5625832 Distributed processing control method and distributed 
          processing system
US5623618 Installation and use of plural expanded memory managers
US5617568 System and method for supporting file attributes on a 
          distributed file system without native support therefor
US5615354 Method and system for controlling references to system 
          storage by overriding values
US5613121 Method and system of generating combined storage references
US5613118 Profile-based preprocessor for optimizing programs
US5606696 Exception handling method and apparatus for a microkernel 
          data processing system
US5249291 Method and apparatus for consensual delegation of software 
          command operations in a data processing system
US5247681 Dynamic link libraries system and method
US5237668 Process using virtual addressing in a non-privileged instruction to
          control the copying of a page of data in or between multiple media
US5220653 Scheduling input/output operations in multitasking systems
US5202995 Method for removing invariant branches from instruction loops 
          of a computer program
US5193190 Partitioning optimizations in an optimizing compiler
US5179703 Dynamically adaptive environment for computer programs

Human Interfacing

Publication Title
US6311198 Method and system for threading documents
US6286025 Method and system of process identification by user defined 
          process variables
US6286000 Light weight document matcher
US6279002 System and procedure for measuring the performance of 
          applications by means of messages
US6271846 Method for reanchoring branches within a directory tree
US6262725 Method for displaying holidays in a locale-sensitive manner 
          across distributed computer enterprise locales
US6260083 System for Java data block transfers of unknown length for 
          applets and applications by determining length of data in local
          buffer and passing length of data combined with data out of program
US6259453 Meshing method and apparatus
US6226405 Method and apparatus for updating node position
US6219066 Method and system for graphical display of probability 
          relationships
US6199043 Conversation management in speech recognition interfaces
US6195736 Method for paging software wavetable synthesis samples
US6195096 Graphical interface method, apparatus and application for 
          creating and modifying a multiple-value text list
US5701456 System and method for interactively formulating database 
          queries using graphical representations
US5699534 Multiple display pointers for computer graphical user 
          interfaces
US5696918 Method of managing marker entities within a document data 
          stream
US5692143 Method and system for recalling desktop states in a data 
          processing system
US5689723 Method for allowing single-byte character set and double-byte 
          character set fonts in a double-byte character set code page
US5689668 Dynamic hierarchical selection menu
US5686937 User interface system and method for creating and removing a 
          scrolling icon from a display based upon user past and present 
          interaction with the icon
US5682488 Variable computer icon for single control of complex software 
          functions executed on a data processing system
US5680605 Method and apparatus for searching a large volume of data 
          with a pointerbased device in a data processing system
US5680560 Method and device for graphically setting multiple parameter 
          ranges
US5678052 Methods and system for converting a text-based grammar to a 
          compressed syntax diagram
US5668966 System and method for direct manipulation of search 
          predicates using a graphical user interface
US5668959 Creating multiple versions of panels from a single panel 
          definition file
US5664210 Method and system of providing multiple selections in text on 
          a computer display
US5664097 System for delaying the activation of inactivity security 
          mechanisms by allowing an alternate input of a multimedia data 
          processing system
US5663517 Interactive system for compositional morphing of music in 
          real-time
US5659772 Method for customizing kana-kanji conversion system and 
          kana-kanji conversion system
US5652899 Software understanding aid for generating and displaying 
          simplified code flow paths with respect to target code statements
US5649080 Apparatus and method for converting line segment data to 
          three-dimensional data
US5649060 Automatic indexing and aligning of audio and text using 
          speech recognition
US5646651 Block mode, multiple access multi-media/graphics memory
US5644715 System for scheduling multimedia sessions among a plurality of
          endpoint systems wherein endpoint systems negotiate connection
          requestswith modification parameters
US5644687 Methods and system for thermal analysis of electronic packages
US5640540 Method and apparatus for translating key codes between 
          servers over a conference networking system
US5638539 Tool for defining complex systems
US5636325 Speech synthesis and analysis of dialects
US5634095 Method of connecting objects on different notebook pages
US5621905 Tree form menu display for a data processing system
US5614925 Method and apparatus for creating and displaying faithful 
          color images on a computer display
US5613057 Method for creating a multimedia application using multimedia 
          files stored in directories that are characteristics of display
          surface areas
US5604861 Method and apparatus for improved notebook control in a data 
          processing system
US5604858 Method and system for apparent direct editing of fixed 
          display elements within a data processing system
US5600778 Graphical resource editor for software customization
US5600773 Logical partitioning of gamma ramp frame buffer for overlay 
          or animation
US5600565 Method and apparatus for error reduction in item packaging
US5596700 System for annotating software windows
US5596345 Method for managing non-rectangular windows in a raster 
          display
US5594857 Conceptual map showing the windows of a complex task
US5592604 Method and system for indicating boundaries of connected data 
          subsets
US5592195 Information displaying device
US5271097 Method and system for controlling the presentation of nested 
          overlays utilizing image area mixing attributes
US5261079 Interface for keyboard emulation provided by an operating 
          system
US5255358 Action bar processing on non-programmable workstations
US5251291 Method of selectively transferring video displayed information
US5251130 Method and apparatus for facilitating contextual language 
          translation within an interactive software application
US5249263 Color palette display interface for a computer-based image 
          editor
US5247614 Method and apparatus for distributed processing of display 
          panel information
US5245322 Bus architecture for a multimedia system
US5220646 Single pass hidden line removal using Z-buffers
US5208910 Menu driven and method system for informing which past 
          selections have caused disabled actions
US5206818 Fugitive emissions monitoring system including integrated 
          fugitive emissions analyzer and source identifier
US5201033 Method for controlling cursor movements on certain computer 
          workstations
US5179700 User interface customization apparatus

Database and Data Handling

Publication Title
US6334134 Insert performance on a multi-system transaction environment
US6314430 System and method for accessing a database from a task 
          written in an objectoriented programming language
US6311184 Sort and merge functions with input and output procedures
US6308245 Adaptive, time-based synchronization mechanism for an 
          integrated posix file system
US6304888 High speed numerical integration method and system
US6298340 System and method and computer program for filtering using 
          tree structure
US6295538 Method and apparatus for creating metadata streams with 
          embedded device information
US6286007 Method and system for efficiently storing and viewing data in 
          a database
US6282545 Mechanism for information extraction and traversal from an 
          object base including a plurality of object classes
US6282541 Efficient group by aggregation in tournament tree sort
US6275785 Hardware simulator for a transaction processing system
US6272489 Visually oriented, easily navigable search facility
US6269376 Method and system for clustering data in parallel in a 
          distributed-memory multiprocessor system
US6269375 Rebalancing partitioned data
US6260038 Clustering mixed attribute patterns
US6260037 Method and computer program product for implementing skip key 
          processing for database grouping queries involving aggregate
          operations by using one or more indices
US6256628 Data charting
US6253213 Method and system for automatically maintaining data 
          consistency across various databases
US6253197 System and method for hash loops join of data using outer 
          join and early-out join
US6243703 Method of accessing and displaying subsystem parameters 
          including graphical plan table data
US6233584 Technique for providing a universal query for multiple 
          different databases
US6226651 Database disaster remote site recovery
US6226639 System and method for hybrid hash join using 
          over-partitioning to respond to database query
US6223176 Method and computer program product for implementing highly 
          concurrent record insertion in an ordinal number dependent database
US6216211 Method and apparatus for accessing mirrored logical volumes
US6208989 Facility for the intelligent selection of information objects
US6199070 Using a database for program logs
US6192373 Managing directory listings in a relational database
US6185699 Method and apparatus providing system availability during 
          DBMS restart recovery
US6182115 Method and system for interactive sharing of text in a 
          networked environment
US6182061 Method for executing aggregate queries, and computer system
US6173292 Data recovery in a transactional database using write-ahead 
          logging and file caching
US5696973 Index-based method for supporting multimethod function 
          overloading with compile-time type checking and run-time dispatch
US5696960 Computer program product for enabling a computer to generate 
          uniqueness information for optimizing an SQL query
US5694597 Method and system for optimizing access to a datastore
US5689697 System and method for asynchronous database command processing
US5687365 System and method for creating a data dictionary for 
          encoding, storing, and retrieving hierarchical data processing 
          information for a computer system
US5687362 Enumerating projections in SQL queries containing outer and 
          full outer joins in the presence of inner joins
US5680621 System and method for domained incremental changes storage 
          and retrieval
US5680603 Method and apparatus for reordering complex SQL queries 
          containing inner and outer join operations
US5680577 Method and system for processing multiple requests for data 
          residing at the same memory address
US5668986 Method and apparatus for handling data storage requests in a 
          distributed data base environment
US5664181 Computer program product and program storage device for a 
          data transmission dictionary for encoding, storing, and retrieving
          hierarchical data processing information for a computer system
US5664176 Moving write lock for replicated objects
US5664175 Method and system for reprioritizing calendar items on a data 
          processing system
US5664155 Dynamically assigning a dump space in a shared data facility 
          to receive dumping information to be captured
US5659730 Computerized index file interrogation and comparison
US5659728 System and method for generating uniqueness information for 
          optimizing an SQL query
US5649168 Computer program product for a query pass through in a 
          heterogeneous distributed data base environment
US5632031 Method and means for encoding storing and retrieving 
          hierarchical data processing information for a computer system
US5632015 Computer program product to efficiently process diverse 
          result sets returned by a stored procedure
US5630124 System and method for assuring atomicity of distributed 
          update requests in a parallel database
US5623659 Parent/child subset locking scheme for versioned objects
US5619692 Semantic optimization of query order requirements using order 
          detection by normalization in a query compiler system
US5615337 System and method for efficiently processing diverse result 
          sets returned by a stored procedures
US5613113 Consistent recreation of events from activity logs
US5604901 Interrogation index file comparison
US5596748 Functional compensation in a heterogeneous, distributed 
          database environment
US5594881 System for updating modified pages of data object represented 
          in concatenated multiple virtual address spaces
US5263159 Information retrieval based on rank-ordered cumulative query 
          scores calculated from weights of all keywords in an inverted index 
          file for minimizing access to a main database
US5261102 System for determining direct and indirect user access 
          privileges to data base objects
US5255387 Method and apparatus for concurrency control of shared data 
          updates and queries
US5247672 Transaction processing system and method with reduced locking
US5237679 Method and system for automatic deletion of a folder having 
          temporary document relationships within a data processing system
US5235654 Advanced data capture architecture data processing system and 
          method for scanned images of document forms
US5201047 Attribute-based classification and retrieval system

Image Processing and Video Technology

Publication Title
US6307559 Method and apparatus for color space conversion, clipping, 
          and scaling of an image during blitting
US6304274 Method and system for slope correcting line stipples/styles
US6285375 Algorithm to transform generalized polygons to trapezoids
US6246478 Reticle for an object measurement system
US6243097 Bounding volume for 3D graphic primitives
US6222554 Navigation in three-dimensional workspace interactive 
          displays having virtual force fields associated with selected objects
US6191800 Dynamic balancing of graphics workloads using a tiling 
          strategy
US6184889 Method and apparatus for supporting non-power-two texture 
          sizes for volume rendering
US6181812 Two-pass document image processing method and system
US5692065 Apparatus and method for determining image quality
US5687376 System for monitoring performance of advanced graphics driver 
          including filter modules for passing supported commands associated
          with function calls and recording task execution time for graphic
          operation
US5687250 Image quality analysis method and apparatus
US5686957 Teleconferencing imaging system with automatic camera steering
US5669006 Method for automatically obtaining spatial layout for 
          multimedia presentations
US5668979 Storage of clipping plane data in successive bit planes of 
          residual frame buffer memory
US5668939 Method and apparatus for rendering a solid three dimensional 
          model from two dimensional input information including closed
          region recognizing and three dimensional rendering
US5664080 System and method for generating a universal palette and 
          mapping an original color space to the universal palette
US5659790 System and method for globally scheduling multimedia stories
US5659671 Method and apparatus for shading graphical images in a data 
          processing system
US5649085 Method and system for storing and displaying system operation 
          traces with asynchronous event-pairs
US5642477 Method and apparatus for selectably retrieving and outputting 
          digitally stored multimedia presentations with real-time 
          non-interrupting, dynamically selectable introduction of output 
          processing
US5631982 System using parallel coordinates for automated line 
          detection in noisy images
US5630039 Tessellating complex in polygons in modeling coordinates
US5627906 Image processing system for producing an attenuation map of a 
          scanned image
US5608538 Scan line queuing for high performance image correction
US5592236 Method and apparatus for overlaying two video signals using 
          an input-lock
US5267047 Apparatus and method of operation for a facsimile subsystem 
          in an image archiving system
US5265198 Method and processor for drawing `polygon with edge`-type 
          primitives in a computer graphics display system
US5257346 Wire-mesh generation from image data
US5249265 Structure storage management in a graphics display device
US5245700 Adjustment of Z-buffer values for lines on the surface of a 
          polygon
US5214752 Point placement method for use in a three-dimensional 
          automatic mesh generation system
US5210602 Coupled-color error diffusion
US5202936 Method for generating a gray-scale pattern

Human Language Processing

Publication Title
US6253177 Method and system for automatically determining whether to 
          update a language model based upon user amendments to dictated text
US6249605 Key character extraction and lexicon reduction for cursive 
          text recognition
US6236958 Method and system for extracting pairs of multilingual 
          terminology from an aligned multilingual text
US6216102 Natural language determination using partial words
US6185529 Speech recognition aided by lateral profile image
US6182044 System and methods for analyzing and critiquing a vocal 
          performance
US5696879 Method and apparatus for improved voice transmission
US5680509 Method and apparatus for estimating phone class probabilities 
          a-posteriori using a decision tree
US5671328 Method and apparatus for automatic creation of a voice 
          recognition template entry
US5664061 Interactive computer system recognizing spoken commands
US5657425 Location dependent verbal command execution in a computer 
          based control system
US5644775 Method and system for facilitating language translation using 
          string-formatting libraries
US5640575 Method and apparatus of translation based on patterns
US5640487 Building scalable n-gram language models using maximum 
          likelihood maximum entropy n-gram models
US5636291 Continuous parameter hidden Markov model approach to 
          automatic handwriting recognition
US5615299 Speech recognition using dynamic features
US5615296 Continuous speech recognition and voice response system and 
          method to enable conversational dialogues with microprocessors
US5267156 Method for constructing a knowledge base, knowledge base 
          system, machine translation method and system therefor
US5263117 Method and apparatus for finding the best splits in a 
          decision tree for a language model for a speech recognizer
US5249289 System and method for rebuilding edited digital audio files
US5222146 Speech recognition apparatus having a speech coder outputting 
          acoustic prototype ranks
US5220621 Character recognition system using the generalized hough 
          transformation and method

Compression, Encryption, and Access Control

Publication Title
US6307938 Method, system and apparatus for generating self-validating 
          prime numbers
US6230311 Apparatus and method for disabling methods called on an object
US6219788 Watchdog for trusted electronic content distributions
US6209575 Tamper proof set screw
US6189095 Symmetric block cipher using multiple stages with modified 
          type-1 and type-3 feistel networks
US6189036 User access to objects in group based access control based on 
          result of greatest common divisor of assigned unique prime numbers
          of user and object
US6181742 Single pass target allocation for video encoding
US5701468 System for performing data compression based on a Liu-Zempel 
          algorithm
US5694595 Remote user profile management administration in a computer 
          network
US5682475 Method and system for variable password access
US5680455 Digital signature generator /verifier/ recorder (DS-GVR) for 
          analog transmissions
US5673209 Apparatus and associated method for compressing and 
          decompressing digital data
US5659755 Method and system in a data processing system for efficiently 
          compressing data using a sorting network
US5657091 Video display controller, user interface and programming 
          structure for such interface
US5652878 Method and apparatus for compressing data
US5642430 Visual presentation system which determines length of time to 
          present each slide or transparency
US5640159 Quantization method for image data compression employing 
          context modeling algorithm
US5613002 Generic disinfection of programs infected with a computer 
          virus
US5604490 Method and system for providing a user access to multiple 
          secured subsystems
US5265163 Computer system security device

Software Development & Object Technology

Publication Title
US6332219 Cross-platform program, system, and method having a global 
          registry object for mapping registry functions in a windows
          operating system environment
US6330711 Method and apparatus for dynamic application and maintenance 
          of programs
US6330518 Method and apparatus for assembling custom compliance tests 
          for configurable specifications
US6321378 Automated code replication during application development
US6298476 Object oriented software build framework mechanism
US6295642 Method and apparatus for partial just in time compiling in a 
          data processing system
US6295641 Method and apparatus for dynamically selecting bytecodes for 
          just in time compiling in a user's environment
US6295613 Debug watch mechanism and method for debugging a computer 
          program
US6269480 Cross platform installer-with the ability to create platform 
          independent variables of specific operating system variables from
          a scripting language
US6269407 Method and system for data filtering within an 
          object-oriented data
US6266625 Calibrating high resolution measurements
US6263493 Method and system for controlling the generation of program 
          statements
US6259447 Controlling an information processing apparatus
US6249789 Method of calculating time-sensitive work algorithms using 
          inputs with different variable effective intervals
US6240498 Object oriented storage pool apparatus and method
US6237140 Compiler-assisted or interpreter-assisted windowing solution 
          to the year 2000 problem for computer programs
US6230315 Data processing method and apparatus
US6230314 Method and device for program transformation using class 
          hierarchy transformation based upon type constraint analysis
US6219663 Method and computer program product for implementing pushdown 
          query in a distributed object management system
US6216149 Method and system for efficient control of the execution of 
          actions in an object oriented program
US6212675 Presentation of visual program test coverage information
US6202098 Method and system for object oriented notification
US6199199 Presentation of visual program performance data
US6199198 Computer system, method, and article of manufacture for 
          visualizing differences between design artifacts and object-oriented 
          code
US6195793 Method and computer program product for adaptive inlining in 
          a computer system
US6192511 Technique for test coverage of visual programs
US6189142 Visual program runtime performance analysis
US6185730 Method and apparatus for creating dippable beans in a java 
          environment
US6182282 Method and system for constructing hybrid virtual function 
          tables
US6182278 Program development support system and support method and 
          storage medium for storing program components which are used for 
          program development support
US6182154 Universal object request broker encapsulater
US6179491 Method and apparatus for slicing class hierarchies
US6175956 Method and computer program product for implementing method 
          calls in a computer system
US5701489 System for partial in-line expansion of procedure calls 
          during program compilation
US5696974 Methods to support multimethod function overloading with 
          compile-time type checking
US5675805 Programming system for generating client and server programs 
          from an undistributed application program
US5675802 Version control system for geographically distributed 
          software development
US5649070 Learning system with prototype replacement
US5644771 Efficient method router that supports multiple simultaneous 
          object versions
US5642511 System and method for providing a visual application builder 
          framework
US5632034 Controlling method invocation sequence through virtual 
          functions in an objectoriented class library
US5630126 Systems and methods for integrating computations into 
          compound documents
US5630109 Apparatus for processing of a series of timing signals
US5627979 System and method for providing a graphical user interface 
          for mapping and accessing objects in data stores
US5623695 System for communicating concurrently with multiple system 
          facilitates through a single application programming interface
          utilizing look-up table specifying entry point information into
          an implementation
US5606699 Storing and querying execution information for 
          object-oriented programs
US5604907 Computer system for executing action slots including multiple 
          action object classes
US6237138 Buffered screen capturing software tool for usability testing 
          of computer applications
US5202981 Process and apparatus for manipulating a boundless data 
          stream in an object oriented programming system
US5193180 System for modifying relocatable object code files to monitor 
          accesses to dynamically allocated memory
US5179672 Apparatus and method for modeling parallel processing of 
          instructions using sequential execution hardware

Internet, eCommerce, and Industry Specific

Publication Title
US6334215 Methodology for migration of legacy applications to new 
          product architectures
US6334154 Article of manufacture for communications of multiple partitions
          employing host-network interface, and address resolution protocol
          for constructing data frame format according to client format
US6330607 Method and system for recovering system resources used by an 
          inactive Telnet client
US6321132 Efficient method for designing slabs for production from an 
          order book
US6314432 System and method for retrieval, saving and printing of using 
          hyperlinks
US6311177 Accessing databases when viewing text on the web
US6310630 Data processing system and method for internet browser 
          history generation
US6295559 Rating hypermedia for objectionable content
US6285777 Internet assisted mail
US6282486 Distributed system and method for detecting traffic patterns
US6249811 Method of establishing a session between terminals on a 
          network, remote terminal and recording medium
US6240330 Method for feedforward corrections for off-specification 
          conditions
US6238337 Medical non-intrusive prevention based on network of embedded 
          systems
US6236968 Sleep prevention dialog based car system
US6232967 Web browser column control
US6209027 Recirculating network address list with single button 
          sequencer/selector
US6205454 Web browser row control
US6192383 Method and system in a computer network for automatically 
          adding synchronization points to network documents
US6178449 Apparatus and method for measuring transaction time in a 
          computer system
US6175862 Hot objects with sequenced links in web browsers
US5691895 Mechanism and architecture for manufacturing control and 
          optimization
US5634017 Computer system and method for processing atomic data to 
          calculate and exhibit the properties and structure of matter based on 
          relativistic models
US5621665 Selecting levels for factors for industrial process 
          experiments
US5609744 Assembly suitable for identifying a code sequence of a 
          biomolecule in a gel embodiment
US5218539 Forms processor with controlled remote revision

Networking and Network Management

Publication Title
US6334162 Efficient data transfer mechanism for input/out devices having a
          device driver generating a descriptor queue and monitoring a 
          status queue
US6321350 Method and apparatus for error detection using a queued 
          direct Input-Output device
US6314531 Method and system for testing and debugging distributed 
          software systems by using network emulation
US6288790 Mobility support for printing
US6275867 Operation-partitioned off-loading of operations in a 
          distributed environment
US6272564 Efficient data transfer mechanism for input/output devices
US6266336 Apparatus and method for setting A/C bits in token ring 
          frames for switches
US6260065 Test engine and method for verifying conformance for server 
          applications
US6243378 Method and apparatus for minimizing contention losses in 
          networks
US6237111 Method for logical connection resynchronization
US6226761 Post dump garbage collection
US6226297 Method and system for providing redundancy to asynchronous 
          transfer mode emulated local-area networks
US6222850 Dynamic transmit tuning for ethernet device drivers
US6212191 Method and system for providing security to asynchronous 
          transfer mode emulated local-area networks
US6209035 System and method for establishing communication links and 
          transferring data among a plurality of commication nodes
US6208661 Variable resolution scheduler for virtual channel 
          communication devices
US6208622 Traffic flow cutover to virtual connection transport
US6198747 Method and system for enhancing communications efficiency in 
          data communications networks wherein broadcast occurs
US6189041 Next hop resolution protocol cut-through to LANs
US5704041 Object independent scoping in an open system interconnection 
          system
US5694548 System and method for providing multimedia quality of service 
          sessions in a communications network
US5689699 Dynamic verification of authorization in retention management 
          schemes for data processing systems
US5687373 Communications system for exchanging data between computers 
          in a network and a method of operating such a system in which 
          communications services are defined within a common object class
US5684967 System and method for generalized network topology 
          representation
US5673318 Method and apparatus for data authentication in a data 
          communication environment
US5671356 Method and apparatus for microcode loading in a multi-nodal 
          network exhibiting distributed control
US5668952 Method for resolving network address by sending reresolve 
          request to nodes at selected time period after establishing address 
          table, and updating the table with received reply thereto
US5649195 Systems and methods for synchronizing databases in a 
          receive-only network
US5644577 Preserving data frame continuity across full-duplex LAN 
          interface with disparate data capacities
US5642421 Encryption of low data content ATM cells
US5640513 Notification of disconnected service machines that have 
          stopped running
US5634006 System and method for ensuring QOS in a token ring network
          utilizing an access regulator at each node for allocating frame
          size for plural transmitting applications based upon negotiated
          information and priority in the network
US5630184 Method of deleting and adding nodes in a spanning tree 
          network by collating replies from other nodes
US5630127 Program storage device and computer program product for 
          managing an event driven management information system with
          rule-based application structure stored in a relational database
US5630061 System for enabling first computer to communicate over switched
          network with second computer located within LAN by using media
          access control driver in different modes
US5629933 Method and system for enhanced communication in a 
          multisession packet based communication system
US5627766 Performance and status monitoring in a computer network
US5614901 Method and apparatus for providing data stream for cost 
          effective transmission links
US5613155 Bundling client write requests in a server
US5611048 Remote password administration for a computer network among a 
          plurality of nodes sending a password update message to all nodes
          and updating on authorized nodes
US5606669 System for managing topology of a network in spanning tree data
          structure by maintaining link table and parent table in eachnetwork
          node
US5603029 System of assigning work requests based on classifying into an
          eligible class where the criteria is goal oriented and capacity
          information is available
US5600798 System and method for controlling LAN data flow control through a
          frame relay network by end point station transmitting notification
          to LAN stations based on congestion notification from the frame
          relay network
US5274625 Traffic measurements in packet communications networks
US5261094 Asynchronous replication of data changes by distributed 
          update requests
US5260942 Method and apparatus for batching the receipt of data packets
US5257366 Query language execution on heterogeneous database servers 
          using a bind-file bridge between application and database languages
US5245608 Logical grouping of layer entities in a layered communication 
          architecture
US5226079 Non-repudiation in computer networks
US5224098 Compensation for mismatched transport protocols in a data 
          communications network
US5223827 Process and apparatus for managing network event counters
US5210750 Method and apparatus for distributed queue multiple access in 
          a communication system

Miscellaneous

Publication Title
US6304983 Checkpoint logging without checkpoint display device 
          availability
US6289085 Voice mail system, voice synthesizing device and method 
          therefore
US6269360 Optimization of ordered stores on a pipelined bus via 
          self-initiated retry
US6263326 Method product `apparatus for modulations`
US6249768 Strategic capability networks
US6236936 Maintaining a desired separation or distribution in a moving
          cluster of machines using a time multiplexed global positioning
          system
US6219828 Method for using two copies of open firmware for self debug 
          capability
US6195700 Application protocol data unit management facility
US6182243 Selective data capture for software exception conditions
US6178467 Microprocessor system requests burstable access to noncacheable
          memory areas and transfers noncacheable address on a bus at burst
          mode
US5701408 Method for testing computer operating or application 
          programming interfaces
US5692207 Digital signal processing system with dual memory structures 
          for performing simplex operations in parallel
US5687375 Debugging of High Performance Fortran programs with backup 
          breakpoints
US5684954 Method and apparatus for providing connection identifier by 
          concatenating CAM's addresses at which containing matched protocol 
          information extracted from multiple protocol header
US5680448 Call routing selection method
US5675797 Goal-oriented resource allocation manager and performance 
          index technique for servers
US5673369 Authoring knowledge-based systems using interactive directed 
          graphs
US5671419 Interprocedural data-flow analysis that supports recursion 
          while only performing one flow-sensitive analysis of each procedure
US5671417 Method and system for inserting floating code hooks into 
          multiple versions of code
US5652749 Apparatus and method for segmentation and time synchronization of
          the transmission of a multiple program multimedia data stream
US5640557 Method and system for processing logic blocks in a data 
          processing system
US5636218 Gateway system that relays data via a PBX to a computer connected
          to a pots and a computer connected to an extension telephone and
          a LAN and a method for controlling same
US5630067 System for the management of multiple time-critical data 
          streams
US5619684 Method and apparatus for consistent user interface in a 
          multiple application personal communications device
US5619618 Neural network shell for application programs
US5617511 Neural network shell for application programs
US5615306 Neural network shell for application programs
US5613110 Indexing method and apparatus facilitating a binary search of 
          digital data
US5613073 Apparatus and method for a buffer reservation system
US5613043 Neural network shell for application programs
US5613040 Neural network shell for application programs
US5604863 Method for coordinating executing programs in a data 
          processing system
US5598570 Efficient data allocation management in multiprocessor 
          computer system
US5274820 Method and system for eliminating operation codes from 
          intermediate prolog instructions
US5237684 Customized and versatile event monitor within event 
          management services of a computer system
US5212662 Floating point arithmetic two cycle data flow
US5177482 RLL encoder and decoder with pipelined plural byte processing


IBM's Legally Binding Commitment Not To Assert the 500 Named Patents 
Against OSS


The pledge will benefit any Open Source Software. Open Source Software 
is any computer software program whose source code is published and 
available for inspection and use by anyone, and is made available under 
a license agreement that permits recipients to copy, modify and 
distribute the programes source code without payment of fees or 
royalties. All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their 
website as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the 
purpose of this pledge..

Subject to the exception provided below, and with the intent that 
developers, users and distributors of Open Source Software rely on our 
promise, IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents 
listed above, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in 
other countries against the development, use or distribution of Open 
Source Software.

In order to foster innovation and avoid the possibility that a party 
will take advantage of this pledge and then assert patents or other 
intellectual property rights of its own against Open Source Software, 
thereby limiting the freedom of IBM or any other Open Source Software 
developer to create innovative software programs, or the freedom of 
others to distribute and use Open Source Software, the commitment not 
to assert any of these 500 U.S. patents and all counterparts of these 
patents issued in other countries is irrevocable except that IBM 
reserves the right to terminate this patent pledge and commitment only 
with regard to any party who files a lawsuit asserting patents or other 
intellectual property rights against Open Source Software 


0
stock8 (166)
1/12/2005 12:43:35 PM
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:14:38 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

>>> Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
>>> losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
>>> considered public domain".  
>>
>> If you want to keep your rights to IBM's patents, you are essentially never
>> going to enforce your own copyrights (at least against other OSS projects).
>> Since you won't enforce them, those OSS projects need not worry about
>> violating the terms of your license.  You won't sue them.
> 
> And I don't believe this.  IBM did not say: sue and you will lose all
> your rights.  They did say: sue and we *may* take away your right to use
> our patents.  

Of course.  You can gamble if you like.

The point is, exercising your IP rights against another oss project would
remove any legally binding guarantee you have.  What happens if IBM turns
evil again when a new CEO takes over?  You have no recourse.  You're back
at IBM's whim, which today looks good, but there is no guarantee of what
happens after a regime change.

I understand what the agreement is *designed* to do, my argument is that it
has far reaching consequences and is compromising the very goal it's
intended to accomplish, that is legally protect open source.

> If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
> IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
> their patents.

Precisely.  That's my point.

> I wouldn't be worried personally, however, since I see
> no reason for IBM to do this.  I see this clause as a tool to
> discourage lawsuits that they don't like (like, oh, say SCO's), but I
> don't see them as opposing the right of OSS developers to assert their
> legitimate IP rights regarding other developers.

I agree, but it also has unintended legal consequences.  The use of the
vague term "any other intellectual property" is dangerous.

>>>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  
>>> 
>>> Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
>>> their use in GPL'ed products.
>>
>> Yes, it does.  Read it again.
> 
> Well, maybe I'll eat my words, but could you quote the section you're
> thinking of?

something wrong with your "find" function?  it's not big document to search
for the word "patent".

Still:

"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
0
erik38 (8626)
1/12/2005 6:13:22 PM
Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> 
> begin  Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> 
> > Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> 
> < snip >
> 
> >> Get it now?
> >
> > No.  Your claims are indefensible.
> 
> Eriks claims generally are. He does not even try to defend them himself, but
> just runs away from them.
> 
> Right, Erik?

Hehehe... Ewik Fudd is too busy fudding away in the mac
groups.  I guess M$ is starting to get worried so they sent
their chief fudster over there.
0
cumulus (7752)
1/12/2005 6:20:46 PM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:49 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> 
> > Erik, I agree that the clause is odd, but you are utterly wrong that
> > your software must be considered public domain.  It says (at best)
> > that you may lose the right to the patents if you sue any *Open
> > Source Software* project over IP.  It doesn't say that you cannot sue
> > non-OSS projects over IP.
> 
> I wasn't talking about non-OSS.
> 
> > Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
> > losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
> > considered public domain".
> 
> If you want to keep your rights to IBM's patents, you are essentially never
> going to enforce your own copyrights (at least against other OSS projects).
> Since you won't enforce them, those OSS projects need not worry about
> violating the terms of your license.  You won't sue them.
> 
> >> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
> >> licensed to everyone, or none at all.
> >
> > Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
> > their use in GPL'ed products.
> 
> Yes, it does.  Read it again.

Maybe to clear things up a bit, but is the gcc series
compiler GPLed??
0
cumulus (7752)
1/12/2005 6:22:12 PM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:14:38 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>>>> Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
>>>> losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
>>>> considered public domain".  
>>>
>>> If you want to keep your rights to IBM's patents, you are essentially never
>>> going to enforce your own copyrights (at least against other OSS projects).
>>> Since you won't enforce them, those OSS projects need not worry about
>>> violating the terms of your license.  You won't sue them.
>> 
>> And I don't believe this.  IBM did not say: sue and you will lose all
>> your rights.  They did say: sue and we *may* take away your right to use
>> our patents.  
>
> Of course.  You can gamble if you like.
>
> The point is, exercising your IP rights against another oss project would
> remove any legally binding guarantee you have.  What happens if IBM turns
> evil again when a new CEO takes over?  You have no recourse.  You're back
> at IBM's whim, which today looks good, but there is no guarantee of what
> happens after a regime change.
>
> I understand what the agreement is *designed* to do, my argument is that it
> has far reaching consequences and is compromising the very goal it's
> intended to accomplish, that is legally protect open source.

For the most part, I agree.  This is a chance that one must weigh.  Of
course, if I use IBM's patents and choose to sue another OSS project
for infringement, I *still* have that right, but I lose the right to
IBM's patents in the future.

I still breathlessly await your admission that the statement, "your
software must be considered public domain," was utterly and
indefensibly stupid.

>
>> If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
>> IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
>> their patents.
>
> Precisely.  That's my point.

No, your original point was "your software must be considered public
domain" and that anyone using the patents loses all IP rights.  That
was your "point", but I'm a little embarrassed to call it a point at
all.

>> Well, maybe I'll eat my words, but could you quote the section you're
>> thinking of?
>
> something wrong with your "find" function?  it's not big document to search
> for the word "patent".
>
> Still:
>
> "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
> wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
> individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
> proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
> licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

I retract my comments on this.  Thanks.

-- 
Jesse F. Hughes

"Dead men can't talk.  Especially when they've been cremated."
           --- From the 1944 radio program "Adventures By Morse"
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 6:55:06 PM
In article <87k6qj83kz.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:16:28
+0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Hamilcar Barca <hamilcar@tld.always.invalid> writes:
> 
>> In article <87sm5787d2.fsf@phiwumbda.org> (Wed, 12 Jan 2005 07:54:49
>> +0100), Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Further, the GPL makes it pretty clear that any patent rights must be
>>>> licensed to everyone, or none at all.  
>>> 
>>> Nonsense.  The GPL doesn't say a damn thing about patent rights and
>>> their use in GPL'ed products.
>>
>> Erik's quoting from the GPL.
> 
> Is he?  Where?

The last sentence in the next to last paragraph in the Preamble read:

  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
  licensed for everyone s free use or not licensed at all.

> I don't see quotation marks.  You mean the part "patent rights must be
> licensed to everyone, or none at all?"

Yes, but I was mistaken.  That's not exactly what Erik said.

> Anyway, if you say so then I withdraw my claim there.  Guess I was
> talking out my ass on that point, but I'm confident the rest of my
> post stands.

It does.

-- 
"It was a trojan now it was identified that it was that machine the
 trojan was not identified but it was identified as being that machine."
-- Copyright 2003 by Jamie.  Used with permission.
   <3sJnb.487317B1.20557@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>

0
hamilcar2 (2912)
1/12/2005 7:20:49 PM
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:55:06 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:
> 
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:14:38 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>>
>>>>> Furthermore, even if it said you couldn't sue *anyone* over IP without
>>>>> losing patent rights, it does not follow that "your software must be
>>>>> considered public domain".  
>>>>
>>>> If you want to keep your rights to IBM's patents, you are essentially never
>>>> going to enforce your own copyrights (at least against other OSS projects).
>>>> Since you won't enforce them, those OSS projects need not worry about
>>>> violating the terms of your license.  You won't sue them.
>>> 
>>> And I don't believe this.  IBM did not say: sue and you will lose all
>>> your rights.  They did say: sue and we *may* take away your right to use
>>> our patents.  
>>
>> Of course.  You can gamble if you like.
>>
>> The point is, exercising your IP rights against another oss project would
>> remove any legally binding guarantee you have.  What happens if IBM turns
>> evil again when a new CEO takes over?  You have no recourse.  You're back
>> at IBM's whim, which today looks good, but there is no guarantee of what
>> happens after a regime change.
>>
>> I understand what the agreement is *designed* to do, my argument is that it
>> has far reaching consequences and is compromising the very goal it's
>> intended to accomplish, that is legally protect open source.
> 
> For the most part, I agree.  This is a chance that one must weigh.  Of
> course, if I use IBM's patents and choose to sue another OSS project
> for infringement, I *still* have that right, but I lose the right to
> IBM's patents in the future.
> 
> I still breathlessly await your admission that the statement, "your
> software must be considered public domain," was utterly and
> indefensibly stupid.

Perhaps it was a bit hyperbolic, but my point was that "in effect" it can
be considered public domain, insofar as enforcing your IP rights puts you
at a greater risk in regards to the patent rights.

>>> If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
>>> IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
>>> their patents.
>>
>> Precisely.  That's my point.
> 
> No, your original point was "your software must be considered public
> domain" and that anyone using the patents loses all IP rights.  That
> was your "point", but I'm a little embarrassed to call it a point at
> all.

You latched on to one statement that I readily admit was a bit over the
top.  That doesn't invalidate my general point though.  Sure, you *CAN* sue
someone to enforce your IP rights, but doing so puts you in a different
legally shaky position.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/12/2005 7:24:43 PM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:55:06 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>> 
>> For the most part, I agree.  This is a chance that one must weigh.  Of
>> course, if I use IBM's patents and choose to sue another OSS project
>> for infringement, I *still* have that right, but I lose the right to
>> IBM's patents in the future.
>> 
>> I still breathlessly await your admission that the statement, "your
>> software must be considered public domain," was utterly and
>> indefensibly stupid.
>
> Perhaps it was a bit hyperbolic, but my point was that "in effect" it can
> be considered public domain, insofar as enforcing your IP rights puts you
> at a greater risk in regards to the patent rights.

But this is still utterly stupid.  It cannot be reasonably considered
public domain, with or without the weasel words "in effect".

The copyright holder still has the right to enforce his copyright (but
he may lose his granted rights regarding IBM's patents).

The copyright holder cannot lose his rights regarding IBM's patents
unless he asserts his "IP rights" against another OSS party and unless
IBM chooses to exert the right it retained in that clause.  

This is not remotely close to public domain.

>>>> If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
>>>> IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
>>>> their patents.
>>>
>>> Precisely.  That's my point.
>> 
>> No, your original point was "your software must be considered public
>> domain" and that anyone using the patents loses all IP rights.  That
>> was your "point", but I'm a little embarrassed to call it a point at
>> all.
>
> You latched on to one statement that I readily admit was a bit over the
> top.  That doesn't invalidate my general point though.  Sure, you *CAN* sue
> someone to enforce your IP rights, but doing so puts you in a different
> legally shaky position.

A bit over the top my ass. 

And suing "someone" does not put you in a different legally shaky
position at all.  The only way you get to that legally shaky position
is if three further things happen: (1) you are suing some OSS project,
(2) you keep using IBM's patented stuff and (3) IBM chooses to
withdraw your right to do so.

You are *still* exaggerating the effect of that clause.

-- 
"And I wish some of you would grow past thinking that you've discovered
some extraordinary thing [...] as if you found the Holy Grail or
something, when I acknowledge a mistake.  After all, I've had to do it
quite a few times.  It's not like it's news." --James S. Harris
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 8:17:24 PM
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:17:24 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:

>>>>> If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
>>>>> IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
>>>>> their patents.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely.  That's my point.
>>> 
>>> No, your original point was "your software must be considered public
>>> domain" and that anyone using the patents loses all IP rights.  That
>>> was your "point", but I'm a little embarrassed to call it a point at
>>> all.
>>
>> You latched on to one statement that I readily admit was a bit over the
>> top.  That doesn't invalidate my general point though.  Sure, you *CAN* sue
>> someone to enforce your IP rights, but doing so puts you in a different
>> legally shaky position.
> 
> A bit over the top my ass. 
> 
> And suing "someone" does not put you in a different legally shaky
> position at all.  The only way you get to that legally shaky position
> is if three further things happen: (1) you are suing some OSS project,
> (2) you keep using IBM's patented stuff and (3) IBM chooses to
> withdraw your right to do so.
> 
> You are *still* exaggerating the effect of that clause.

#3 above is not required.  You're in a legally shaky position even if IBM
doesn't choose to withdraw the right to do so, because they can choose to
do so at any time.  You have no legal guarantee that they won't anymore.
That's the shaky position.  Given how IBM is a publicly traded corporation,
there is no guarantee that the current open source friendly attitude will
prevail in the event of a regime change.

#2 is obvious, as it doesn't effect you at all if you're not using any of
IBM's patents.

and #1 is the issue at hand.  If you use IBM's patents, and are open
source, you have IBM's legally binding guarantee that they won't sue you,
unless you try to enforce your IP rights on any other open source project,
then you lose the guarantee, and that's what puts you in the shaky
position.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/12/2005 8:27:15 PM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:17:24 +0100, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
>>>>>> If you are worried that IBM will not let you enforce your legitimate
>>>>>> IP rights against infringement, then I certainly advise against using
>>>>>> their patents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely.  That's my point.
>>>> 
>>>> No, your original point was "your software must be considered public
>>>> domain" and that anyone using the patents loses all IP rights.  That
>>>> was your "point", but I'm a little embarrassed to call it a point at
>>>> all.
>>>
>>> You latched on to one statement that I readily admit was a bit over the
>>> top.  That doesn't invalidate my general point though.  Sure, you *CAN* sue
>>> someone to enforce your IP rights, but doing so puts you in a different
>>> legally shaky position.
>> 
>> A bit over the top my ass. 
>> 
>> And suing "someone" does not put you in a different legally shaky
>> position at all.  The only way you get to that legally shaky position
>> is if three further things happen: (1) you are suing some OSS project,
>> (2) you keep using IBM's patented stuff and (3) IBM chooses to
>> withdraw your right to do so.
>> 
>> You are *still* exaggerating the effect of that clause.
>
> #3 above is not required.  You're in a legally shaky position even
> if IBM doesn't choose to withdraw the right to do so, because they
> can choose to do so at any time.  You have no legal guarantee that
> they won't anymore.

Legally shaky means (to me) that what you're doing may well violate
some legal requirements.  This isn't so without (3).  In this case,
your position is not "legally shaky" at all.

> That's the shaky position.  Given how IBM is a publicly traded corporation,
> there is no guarantee that the current open source friendly attitude will
> prevail in the event of a regime change.
>
> #2 is obvious, as it doesn't effect you at all if you're not using any of
> IBM's patents.

Or if you choose to stop using them.

> and #1 is the issue at hand.  If you use IBM's patents, and are open
> source, you have IBM's legally binding guarantee that they won't sue you,
> unless you try to enforce your IP rights on any other open source project,
> then you lose the guarantee, and that's what puts you in the shaky
> position.

Now this is still not accurate. You mistake "try to enforce your IP
rights" for "files a lawsuit".  You mistake the fact that IBM cannot
sue you in this situation *unless* they withdraw your rights to use
the patents *and* you continue to do so.  

But, you are ever so slowly approaching a correct statement.  Of
course, the sequence 1 + 1/n might look like it's converging to 0, but
one shouldn't wait for it.  Anyway, your statements are not so utterly
stupid in this post as in previous.

This is nowhere near so dumb as "thus your software must be considered
public domain", "in effect" or otherwise.

It is nowhere near the almost incoherent claim: "'You get our patents
if you abide by any open source license', but since open source
licenses are an assertion of IP rights, you can't get the patents,"
(which also involves gratuitous confusion of asserting rights and
filing lawsuits).

It is not even as laughably incorrect as "Sure, you *CAN* sue someone
to enforce your IP rights, but doing so puts you in a different
legally shaky position," which both uses the unqualified "someone" and
also the term "legally shaky" to make it sound like IBM could
immediately sue *you* in this situation.  They couldn't.  Unless they
explicitly withdraw your right to use their patents and you continue
to do so.  This is not a *legally shaky* position.  This is a position
in which one might lose previously granted rights.  Not the same thing
at all.

-- 
"I am a force of Nature.  Time is a friend of mine, and We talk about
things, here and there.  And sometimes We muse a bit [...] and then We
watch them go... in the meantime, Time and I, We play with some of
them, at least for a little while." --- JSH and His pal, Time.
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/12/2005 10:07:26 PM
In article <esritbbvr2n3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
Erik Funkenbusch  <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>
>#3 above is not required.  You're in a legally shaky position even if IBM
>doesn't choose to withdraw the right to do so, because they can choose to
>do so at any time.  You have no legal guarantee that they won't anymore.
>That's the shaky position.  Given how IBM is a publicly traded corporation,
>there is no guarantee that the current open source friendly attitude will
>prevail in the event of a regime change.

Of course, an investment of a couple of billions is no guarantee. 
But not something shareholders wouldn't want to loose.
There is nothing strange in the behaviour of IBM. It is in their
current and future interest. Publicly traded and all.


-- 
Groetjes.
-- 
Albert van der Horst,Oranjestr 8,3511 RA UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
        One man-hour to invent,
                One man-week to implement,
                        One lawyer-year to patent.
0
albert37 (3001)
1/24/2005 8:13:21 PM
On 24 Jan 2005 20:13:21 GMT, Albert van der Horst wrote:

> In article <esritbbvr2n3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
> Erik Funkenbusch  <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>
>>#3 above is not required.  You're in a legally shaky position even if IBM
>>doesn't choose to withdraw the right to do so, because they can choose to
>>do so at any time.  You have no legal guarantee that they won't anymore.
>>That's the shaky position.  Given how IBM is a publicly traded corporation,
>>there is no guarantee that the current open source friendly attitude will
>>prevail in the event of a regime change.
> 
> Of course, an investment of a couple of billions is no guarantee. 
> But not something shareholders wouldn't want to loose.
> There is nothing strange in the behaviour of IBM. It is in their
> current and future interest. Publicly traded and all.

Current interest, yes.  Future is hard to predict.  Sun thought they and
IBM were best buddies as well, but lately IBM has decided to play dirty
pool with them.
0
erik38 (8626)
1/25/2005 6:15:00 AM
On 2005-01-25, Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> sputtered:
> On 24 Jan 2005 20:13:21 GMT, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
>> In article <esritbbvr2n3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch  <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>#3 above is not required.  You're in a legally shaky position even if IBM
>>>doesn't choose to withdraw the right to do so, because they can choose to
>>>do so at any time.  You have no legal guarantee that they won't anymore.
>>>That's the shaky position.  Given how IBM is a publicly traded corporation,
>>>there is no guarantee that the current open source friendly attitude will
>>>prevail in the event of a regime change.
>> 
>> Of course, an investment of a couple of billions is no guarantee. 
>> But not something shareholders wouldn't want to loose.
>> There is nothing strange in the behaviour of IBM. It is in their
>> current and future interest. Publicly traded and all.
>
> Current interest, yes.  Future is hard to predict.  Sun thought they and
> IBM were best buddies as well, but lately IBM has decided to play dirty
> pool with them.

If true, that's probably so they wouldn't have to settle for sloppy
seconds. Now MICROS~1 has to jump on it after it's been used.

-- 
Microsoft: The company that made the Internet dangerous.
0
sinister2419 (3164)
1/25/2005 8:10:48 AM
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

<snip>

> Current interest, yes.  Future is hard to predict.  Sun thought they
> and IBM were best buddies as well, but lately IBM has decided to play
> dirty pool with them.

fun injection alert

pray tell us exactly what form this `dirty pool' took and what exactly
do you mean by 'Sun thought they and IBM were `best buddies'. Would the
Sun Micros~1 alliance be also considered `dirty pool' and if not - why
not ? Or is it your only purpose here is to spin this into something
negative about IBM.


------
Previous fud injections in this thread from Micros~1s chief fud
architect ...

01. IBM will change their minds later.
02. The 500 patents are essentially worthless.
03. You are violating the terms of this license if you assert copyright
rights
04. The vendor would be unable to enforce their copyright.
05. The IBM license would not be compatible with the GPL.
06. You are essentially never going to enforce your own copyrights.
07. The agreement .. is compromising the very goal it's intended to
accomplish, that is legally protect open source.
------

`Let me spell it out for you, since you appear to be too stupid to
comprehend.' Erik F.

I though we were not going to resort the the ad hominem from now on
ewic ??

`What happens if IBM turns evil again' Erik F.
`there is no guarantee of what happens after a regime change.' Erik F.

0
doug_mentohl (470)
1/25/2005 1:18:04 PM
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> writes:

> On 24 Jan 2005 20:13:21 GMT, Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
>> In article <esritbbvr2n3.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
>> Erik Funkenbusch  <erik@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>#3 above is not required.  You're in a legally shaky position even if IBM
>>>doesn't choose to withdraw the right to do so, because they can choose to
>>>do so at any time.  You have no legal guarantee that they won't anymore.
>>>That's the shaky position.  Given how IBM is a publicly traded corporation,
>>>there is no guarantee that the current open source friendly attitude will
>>>prevail in the event of a regime change.
>> 
>> Of course, an investment of a couple of billions is no guarantee. 
>> But not something shareholders wouldn't want to loose.
>> There is nothing strange in the behaviour of IBM. It is in their
>> current and future interest. Publicly traded and all.
>
> Current interest, yes.  Future is hard to predict.  Sun thought they and
> IBM were best buddies as well, but lately IBM has decided to play dirty
> pool with them.

You have a funny sense of security.  You are concerned about the terms
of IBM's open source patent licensing, because *if* one sues a fellow
open-source project over IP concerns, IBM might withdraw the patent
rights.

But you're not concerned that Microsoft changes the EULA in service
packs.

-- 
"After years of arguing I realize that your intellects are too limited
to fully grasp my work.  [...] Still, no matter how child-like your  
minds are, [...] since you have language, [...] there's a chance that 
I'll be able to find something that your minds can handle." --JSH
0
jesse18 (2492)
1/25/2005 2:07:00 PM
Reply: