IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

[Posted April 6, 2010 by corbet]

Here's an eWeek article about the battle of words between IBM and TurboHercules. "In response to a query from eWEEK, IBM issued the following statement: 'IBM sent TurboHercules a non-exhaustive list of patents that pertain to our mainframe technology. We did not make any explicit assertions or claims that TurboHercules had violated them. We were merely responding to TurboHercules' surprise that IBM had intellectual property rights on a platform we've been developing for more than 40 years. We stand behind the pledge we made in 2005, and also our rights to protect our significant investments in mainframe technology.'"

to post comments

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 6, 2010 21:38 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (3 responses)

If anyone could make a start on documenting this, that would be very helpful:
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM#Suing_free_software_project_...

(...otherwise I'll give it a go in a day or too.)

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 6, 2010 23:56 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link] (2 responses)

Hm, but this is not a lawsuit brought by IBM just yet.

In fact it seems that IBM was hit with an antitrust complaint because they did not wish to license their software to someone who wasn't buying their hardware.

So before accusing IBM of suing anyone, I would wait for them to actually sue, based on patents. So far, they have not sued any free software project based on patents.

What they've done is, they have threatened a commercial operation, by waving some of their patents around. That operation is trying to make money by replacing one piece of IBM's business here (hardware) with their own solution, while getting to use IBM's software for the purpose. In fact, that operation did fire the first shot (antitrust), which isn't exactly nice, either.

I fail to see why IBM should be forced to sell their own software under terms set by someone else. As has been pointed out before, similar arguments could be made to un-GPL GPL'ed software (mysql).

If IBM _does_ attempt to shut down a free software project based on patents, one can still revisit that particular issue then. But, not yet.

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 7, 2010 0:47 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (1 responses)

Thanks for pointing out the big mistake (that IBM didn't sue). I've updated the section
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM#TurboHercules.2C_2010

I've limited myself to the swpat aspects. For IBM, it might be part of a bigger commercial picture, but for en.swpat.org, I'm just documenting what they do regarding swpats.

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 7, 2010 8:08 UTC (Wed) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]

Yes, fair enough. I don't like the patents aspect either.

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 6, 2010 22:34 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (6 responses)

Am I correct in thinking that TurboHercules is a SOFTWARE project?

And that they are based in Europe?

In which case, TH should just stick two fingers up at IBM and say "we sell software. As per the European Patent Treaty, our product is *incapable* of infringing patents. Leave us alone or we'll sue for you to be declared vexatious".

Cheers,
Wol

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 6, 2010 22:42 UTC (Tue) by Tuna-Fish (guest, #61751) [Link]

However, they probably want to sell something to Americans, or let Americans use their code without having to fear for a lawsuit, meaning they have to care.

EPT is a good thing for consumers, but if you are a company or even a foss project, you do want access to the single largest highly technical unified market in the world, whether it's for customers or developers.

software patents do exist in Europe

Posted Apr 6, 2010 23:36 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] (2 responses)

Unfortunately, the UK has upheld a software patent (Symbian v. Comptroller General (2008, UK)) and there's a German case which I haven't looked into but some people say it endorses software patents.

So, we've got the EPO looking at the law and granting software patents, and we've the courts looking at the law and agreeing that they're valid. Our interpretations of the law don't matter :-( The campaigns against software patents must continue.

software patents do exist in Europe

Posted Apr 7, 2010 1:37 UTC (Wed) by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648) [Link] (1 responses)

I agree that the campaigns must continue; however, do remember that, in most European countries (including Germany and not including the UK), precedent is not as important as in the U.S. Also remember that the UK has a long history of being a poor environment for technology.

---linuxrocks123

software patents do exist in Europe

Posted Apr 7, 2010 14:50 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

True. And the UK case is weaker precedent than usual. It's a very interesting read actually: the court didn't endorse patents on software, they instead endorsed deferring decision making on that issue to the European Patent Office. (Let's ignore that this seems strange from a sovereignty point of view...)

That means they haven't said that the EPO's interpretation is also their interpretation, they just said that the EPO's interpretation is one acceptable interpretation and that they want to be harmonious.

That ruling can thus be replaced if it's shown that being harmonious on this is in fact harmful, and it disappears if the EPO changes it's stance. I've been meaning to write more on this for a while. Here are the highlights:

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Symbian_v._Comptroller_General_%...

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 9, 2010 13:55 UTC (Fri) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

They tried to stick more than two fingers up at IBM and threatened them with an antitrust lawsuit if IBM doesn't license their mainframe software for their commercial offering. In their threat they wrote that IBM don't has valid »IP rights« to that technology anyhow. IBM's answer was a list of software patents that they held. This is no counter lawsuit, but an implied threat that there *is* IP that they could sue over if TurboHercules continues on their path.

If one has learned one thing from SCO, it's that one should not threaten IBM with a lawsuit over licensing issues. Groklaw calls their lawyers Nazgul for a reason.

IBM Denies Breaking Its Open Source Promise (eWeek)

Posted Apr 9, 2010 19:11 UTC (Fri) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

I dont fully understand this, but I do know you are confused on at least one point. TurboHercules is not a free software project. It is a commercial business built around a free software project - there is a distinction. They appear to sell 'solutions' for running mainframe software on PC hardware using the Hercules emulator.