So let me get this right, on one hand we have IBM, mega tech global behemouth; winner of god knows how many awards for innovation; owner of a patent portfolio that must look like a good chunk of the Library of Congress; and with a budget that would embarass a small country.

And other the hand we have this backwoods outfit, who's sole revenue stream comes from throwing writs around. Heck, even their own website says that their product is merely "IP" rather than actual stub-your-toe-on-it real products. This shouts "patent troll" in 10 ft high neon letters!

I hope that IBM (unlike Hynix, Micro, Samsung et al) manage to deal them a good dose of the "SCO treatment" - i.e. replied; reveilled; and then ruined. :p

Remind me: wasn't I using Intel chips in the 1970s with these features?

How long does a patent last in the good ole US of A?

You probably were, but this'll be one of those "ah, but if you do it *this* way" patents.

The lawsuit will be one of those: "You are doing it this way, aren't you?"

"No"

"Oh yes you are"

"Oh no we're not"

"Oooooh yes you are"

"Oooooooooooooooh no we're not"

......pantomime ones that all revolves around whose lawyers are better at confusing a judge with technical detail and where the subsequent appeal revolves around a tortuous definition of the word "innovative".

If a company goes into the research and development of a product or technique but has not have the market capital or position to release the product to market why should it not reap the rewards?

If it feels its design and technique are being used by another manufacturer then why should it not ask for money?

Just because a company is not well known does not make it a troll. As much as you may like it to.

If you as me, being "...one of the world’s leading intellectual property companies..." seems a bit like being one the worlds foremost puppy strangling companies if you ask me. Not something of which you should really be all that proud.

Maybe it'll teach them a lesson that patents are evil in the first place.

And James, why are they sharing their research so publicly? Unless it wasn't all that innovative, in which case the one who can bring the product to life should in fact reap the rewards... If your idea is super secret though, keep it to yourself and make people sign non-disclosure forms.

I would have thought they would have learnt from SCO that to tackle IBM is a major and expensive project.

I would also be wary of tackling IBM on patents, as they have more than anyone else, not to mention prior art from their research labs. Though, IBM does tend to use it's patent portfolio to cross license technology rather than monetary gain.

This one could run and run ...

As a Canadian, I am embarressed. The company is a total Patent Troll.

IBM makes most of its money from hardware & I doubt they could care less about these Canadian trolls, as a prior Canadian mentioned earlier in his embarrassment. Furthermore IBM does give out freely to the OSS & in large terms. That makes them good. Their ownership of patent farmery seems to be more of a protection of themselves than that of going after others. That makes them good-er, ok better. This doesn't mean that IBM won't turn & suddenly sue the whole world but it just doesn't seem to be their focus....yet. That makes them potentially bad.

Compared with M$, IBM are gentlemen or ladies of virtue rather than muck-raking pools of sputum. I would wonder if this other group is merely a subsidiary of M$. It wouldn't surprise me. M$ has done it so many times before & IBM does support OSS which M$ doesn't like. Yes, I know M$ are now suddenly the good guys, emerging from their soulless pit of excrement to support OSS. Bull-scheisse! (I'll believe it when the pig flew)

I think in 1972 IBM's GDP was 20 times that of Australia's.