[stan_rogers]

The patent application was in 1995 (the patent is expired now). Like a lot of (even most of) IBM's generalizable patents, it is and was defensive. (Non-obviousness had gone out the window long before this, and they'd already been bitten by trolls. Basically, they patented everything that wasn't already patented by anyone just to avoid infringement suits. To my knowledge, they never actively protected anything that should have been unpatentable because of obviousness.)

[ekidd]

IBM is alleged to have have used dubious parents very aggressively back in the day: https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html

> As the Big Blue crew looked on (without a flicker of emotion), my colleagues--all of whom had both engineering and law degrees--took to the whiteboard with markers, methodically illustrating, dissecting, and demolishing IBM's claims. We used phrases like: "You must be kidding," and "You ought to be ashamed." But the IBM team showed no emotion, save outright indifference. Confidently, we proclaimed our conclusion: Only one of the seven IBM patents would be deemed valid by a court, and no rational court would find that Sun's technology infringed even that one.

> An awkward silence ensued. The blue suits did not even confer among themselves. They just sat there, stonelike. Finally, the chief suit responded. "OK," he said, "maybe you don't infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?"

[stan_rogers]

That was an answering suit, as I recall - answering an equally ridiculous suit. The writer conveniently left that part out.

[slfnflctd]

This would make for a fascinating book, with the right interviews. Seems like a very thorough case study and a must-read for anyone dealing in the U.S. with potential patent concerns. There are likely some dissonant takeaways, too, and that's always fun.