IBM's patent donations (was Re: [TriLUG] So did they get your quote right Jason?)

[Jason Tower]

On Friday 14 January 2005 00:00, Mike Johnson wrote:
> Jon Carnes wrote:
> > The N&O interviewed Jason Tower for their recent story on IMB's
> > donation of 500 patents to the OpenSource community.
> > http://www.newsobserver.com/business/story/2015131p-8398728c.html
> >
> > Says Jason:
> >  All in all, it's very magnanimous of IBM, and I hope this is
> > indicative of a future strategy to embrace open source with actions
> > and not just words. Nothing but good can come from this.
>
> Heh.  I spoke with the reporter and said something entirely
> different.
>
> Eh, what the hell, these are my thoughts.  Feel free to discuss:
>
> I'm a pessimist and very skeptical of IBM's offer.  It seems like a
> publicity stunt and little more.  Are those particular patents really
> of use?  Perhaps they're about to expire.  I haven't seen a list of
> the particular patents (though it may exist).  I agree with the
> articles towards the end that if IBM was really serious about this,
> they'd take a less aggressive approach to software patents in
> general.  If you look at IBM's portfolio of patents (I believe they
> hold more patents than any other company), five hundred is a drop in
> the bucket.  IBM mentions that they indend to reserve the right to
> enforce patents when other companies want to sell software related to
> IBM's patents.  This isn't what Open Source is all about.  If you
> look at the BSD license (my favorite), code under that license may be
> bundled up and sold, as long as credit is given.  This will directly
> conflict with IBM's 'opening' of their patents, as it still restricts
> the use of software that uses one of IBM's patents.
>
> Really, I haven't had the time to totally drink this in, but it
> smells like little more than a publicity stunt.
>
>
> Mike

i'm generally just as skeptical as mike, and that's pretty much what i 
thought as well.  but i knew that if i said that, my name (and company) 
wouldn't get printed in the paper, and i like free publicity.  since i 
got quoted and mike didn't, it would appear that my assumption was 
correct :-)

actually, i gave the reporter who called me a number of comments (some 
positive, some not so positive), but he clearly didn't understand what 
i was talking about (he didn't even know what "open source" was - his 
words, not mine).  towards the end he confessed that he wasn't the 
technology reporter, just filling in for a sick co-worker.  keep that 
in mind the next time you read anything in the mainstream press.

jason