https://seekingalpha.com/article/4235503-ibm-reasons-quit#alt1
Everyone in the hierarchy has been promoted well past their level of competence. It's like hardening of the arteries. One suspects this may be the case with IBM.
IBM continues to lead the world in patents granted, but the benefits to growth and profitability don't materialize.
It's Hail Mary business thinking - bet the farm on one last shot at a quick recovery.
LAST SHOT!?
.
.
Hope Red Hat was not just a transaction for PBC 2018.
I have had MANY of my patents split into "method" and "system" submissions. They are all about pushing the numbers. However, by the time I left (about a year ago) patent activity had substantially slowed due to some internal process changes. IBM is likely to fall from its #1 patent ranking, but it may take several years since the number is based on granted patents.
I have be granted patents with several companies. Other employers encouraged me to write patents to be as wide as possible. This let them leverage the patent in as many situations as possible. Also, since the cost per filing was around $40K, bigger patents were generally considered more economical.
IBM was different. They encouraged narrow patents. One idea and 3 claims max. If you produced a wide-ranging patent, IBM lawyers would try to slice it up into multiple patents. They also had a habit of splitting "method and system" claims into separate "method" and "system" submissions. I have never seen anyone else who does that.
Narrow and split patents aren't necessarily wrong. They simply result in higher filing numbers.
Someone should look at those patents. Many of them are totally irrelevant to the business. IBM pays people to sit around dreaming up things to patent just to make high numbers.