This isn't exactly new behavior for IBM. It's more like tradition there. IBM has an astonishing patent portfolio, routinely topping the list of annual patent counts, and yet does next to nothing with the vast majority of them... until someone else makes money with something that IBM has a patent on. And then the blue-suited lawyers arrive and shake the infringer down for money. Even Sun's been on the receiving end of that.<p>Anyone familiar with IBM's history would, I think, not be at all surprised by this.
Whatever you think of IBM's ends, the use of these means:<p>"<i>Mueller points out that two of the patents that IBM listed in its [threatening] letter to Hercules are included in the list of 500 patents that IBM promised to not assert against open source software in 2005."</i><p>Can't be seen as good.
Would it be possible to make a license - "PGPL" - that included something to the effect of "If you assert any patent against any PGPL-licensed project, you lose all rights to all PGPL-licensed projects forever"?
See also these Fake Steve pieces:<p><a href="http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/why-ibm-is-in-trouble-with-antitrust.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/why-ibm-is-in-trouble-with-...</a><p><a href="http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/case-against-ibm-continued.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.fakesteve.net/2009/10/case-against-ibm-continued....</a>
The letter lists 106 patents + 67 applied that Hercules is accused of using, but only two of those were listed in the "we won't sue you for this" category? I am inclined to give IBM some benefit of the doubt here.