Thu 28 Sep 2006
The New York Times had a front page article this week talking about IBM’s announcement that they are trying to add more transparency to their patent filing process. In summary they will:
- Put all their patents on the web whether current or pending
- Try to name their patents intuitively
- No patents based on business processes unless there is substanative technical merit
IBM’s release can be found here.
There’s a lot of great discssion on this in the blogosphere. It seems to be overwhelmingly positive, as one might expect from that (this?) group.
The pro:
This is a huge positive step by IBM and shows real leadership in addressing our completely screwed up patent system.
Hats off to Big Blue on a very progressive idea, and one that is not without business risk. Ultimately IBM executives have the right idea, which is to say if pending patents are truly innovative and based on technological advances, the fact they’re public poses no real threat.
Techdirt.:
What Does It Say When The World’s Largest Patent Holder Sees Problems With The System?
N/A: Ben Laurie: “I think this is an excellent step in the right direction by IBM”
Seeking Alpha:
IBM’s Push in Patent
Reform is a Very Big Deal
The con:
At a blog called PatentHawk, the author wrote:
To buy the rationale put forth in the NY Times article, that IBM is self-imposing some kind of patent reform, is pure theatre. The move is clearly a publicity stunt, with likely a few unstated motives.
At Jim Moore’s Journal, he bashes “IBM’s Open Source Conspiracy“:
IBM public relations must be singing this morning. They have pulled off “the big lie” at least for now. They have made it look like they are opening up the crown jewels, when what they are really doing is radically diminishing the rights of independent technologists.
It may be that he wrote more to my level, but I found Charles Zedlewski’s rebuttal
to Mr. Moore far more convincing.
For my part, I think it’s a good thing. If a patent is really innovative and
enforceable as it should be, then IBM isn’t giving up much (and gaining PR points and investing in its brand). I do think there’s a lot of posturing here, but the IBM PR engine is often like that.