IBM opens 500 patents
I'm still trying to understand what my own personal thoughts on IP are (the laws are obviously seriously skewed, but is proprietary inherently ok, not-ok, somewhere in between?). Today's announcement by IBM that they'd open a bunch of patented software was picked apart by Information Week as running counter to IBM's presumed need to have strong IP protection, as evidenced by their trying to influence European legislation in that area. I'm not sure there's really a contradiction there. It's a big company so who knows how linked events are.
But as an "outside" observer, IBM is talking a lot about services built on open infrastructure. Even Richard Stallman recently said that software can be proprietary without being antisocial:
Custom software is meant to be used by one client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as you're respecting your client's freedom.He was speaking about the distinction between "non-free" software and "custom" software.
So for IBM to talk about open infrastructure and custom solution services and then apparently back that with actions, but still want IP controls for that custom slice of software doesn't seem that surprising or out of line to me.
I definitely like the idea of a strong, quality commons and the benefits of an open development system are clear to me. Completely ruling out software patents seems extreme, though, and doesn't seem like a way to guarantee a thriving commones. Plus to me code is clearly something that should be deserving of copyright protection as a creative/artist expression. But the legislation needs to protect the commons and encourage it equally (if not more) than encouraging investment and innovation by granting monopolies. Currently legislatures are moving in the direction of permanent monopolies, which is obviously bad news for everybody (aside from a few in the short term). Given the rapid pace of life and the rapid results the financial markets expect, even 10 year copyrights and patents seem like they'd be longer than is truly needed.
I need some time to read some of the experts. The EFF has lots of info on their page. Lawrence Lessig has lots of writings...I'd like to read his Code and other Laws of Cyberspace.
Interestingly he's got a post today about the IBM patent release being a good thing. And in it he uses the word "commonists". I'm assuming that's not a typographical error and it strikes a chord with me. Maybe a new term is needed to move away from the generally negative connotations of "socialists" and "communists" in the US.
Leave a comment