Like Mr. Stasik, I like this move by IBM. I suspect I perceive it a little differently -- perhaps because I haven't thought about it in much depth. But I'll offer a few perspectives.
Re being self-serving, I don't see much done by large corporations (or any business entities for that matter) that isn't self-serving. I had heard that for years Bill Gates's favorite (and possibly sole) charity was an anti-piracy organization. Not quite the modern day Carnegie.
The approach by IBM is actually quite simple and quite predictable. First, it's well known that you derive a business benefit from commoditizing a complementary market. As an example, Microsoft has done a tremendous job of commoditizing hardware -- most people don't care what brand of harddrive they have as long as it works with MS Windows. So, harddrive manufactures scramble around in tough competition to provide more GB for less $$ while Microsoft can charge more or less whatever it wants -- because consumers care about the MS brand and don't care about the HD brand.
Hardware manufacturers would do well to do the same. And IBM is. They're investing heavily into Linux to commoditize the OS that runs their server hardware. They're trying to get to the place where people will say -- "I don't care what OS you run as long as it's an IBM server."
So, what's the biggest threat to Linux right now? Microsoft's huge patent portfolio. What's the best defense to a huge patent portfolio? You'll have to go back about 20 years to remember this cold war acronym, but it's MAD -- mutually assured destruction. It's a patent portfolio of your own that covers what the other patent owner does for a living.
Now, people will look at MSFT's portfolio vs. 500 for OSS and say MSFT has a distinct advantage. That's true to a point. The size of a portfolio influences the costs of analysis -- how much it costs to evaluate the portfolio. But all you need is one strong claim that cuts at the core of MSFT's business to enhance your negotiating position. Well, MSFT's business is so diverse that I'd recommend having several killer patents -- not just one claim.
I'm sure that, while IBM dedicated only 500, IBM would rush to OSS's aid if MSFT had it in a bind. The 500, in my opinion, is a message to OSS -- "don't worry, we've got your back." I believe the intent is to encourage the OSS community to keep doing it's work and keep churning out fantastic product after fantastic product -- basically on a volunteer basis.
And, yes, the round number of 500 suggests an arbitrary number picked in a corporate meeting somewhere, but I'd wager that the specific 500 weren't picked in that meeting. I'd wager that the specific 500 were picked according to what aspects of technology IBM considers complementary vs. core and the perceived threat to OSS software -- especially those OSS packages that run on IBM servers.
For what it's worth, I'm surprised it's taking so long for other hardware manufacturers to broaden the scope of supported OSs. All they have to do is produce Linux drivers in addition to Windows drivers. Many just open their specs to the OSS community so the OSS community can write the drivers. One contrary example is nVidia -- they actually produce their own Linux drivers and, in my opinion, add an unnecessary layer of complexity in Linux installation. However, Xandros (and many others) now include nVidia drivers properly configured in their installation kits.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've been running my pracitce as a primarily Linux-based shop now for about 3-4 years -- whenever Mandrake 8.1 was the latest greatest distro.
Regards.
Author
Topic: IBM pledges 500 patents to Open Source (Read 2933 times)
