Curious, did you submit any yourself? Did they provide incentives for you or staff to come up with these 'documents' ? Do they have a monthly quota for # of new patents per week/month? In addition to staff submissions, did they have special division specifically their to conjure up new patents fulltime? Feel free to indulge, I find it fascinating to hear it from someone who has been in the belly of the beast.
For example, my good friend had to submit and modify his idea 3 times because the lawyers were not quite happy with the novelty of it. Documenting your idea is a bit more involved then just slapping a few paragraphs down and sending it off to the legal team.
As an IBMer, I've refused to participate in patents because they are a net negative for society. IBM does however reward you for filing patents.
In the USA, it's like $1000 for your first file and then royalties from the patent in some cases (I've heard 1%, but this is just a rumor) if it is granted. Beyond filing your first patent there are different tiers for the number filed & accepted that provide extra monetary reward.
As far as I am aware, there are no divisions at IBM that just sit around and come up with new patents. Novel ideas come as a product of working on other things, so a team doing nothing but patents would probably quickly run out of inspiration. There are however monthly meetings with "Master Inventors" who have been through the process several times and are willing to help mentor you through the process. As an employee, management regularly has asked (2-3x a year) if anything we've done we thought was patentable.
On one occasion at a meeting of a second-line managers entire org (4 or 5 teams), an employee questioning the utility of making patent submissions a numbers game (e.g, everybody better submit some) was told - with limited paraphrasing - "Hey, 1,000 people on the street want your job and will do the work plus publish technical reports plus submit patents for less money. You should keep that in mind."
I suspect, but didn't really know enough people in other software group divisions to verify, that this particular managerial mindset may have been more tied to our specific division than IBM "in the large."
Particularly the case since it's patent portfolios that are valuable more than individual patents. If they had a regular policy of small-percentage royalty share, a company could well end up with a portfolio of 10,000 patents that has maybe 15,000 or 20,000 royalty-share agreements attached to it. That would be hugely more risky to manage than just 10,000 patents owned by the company with no riders attached. For example, say the company wants to sell this portfolio. A sale of the portfolio could potentially be held up by any of those 15,000+ people objecting that the terms prejudice their contractual agreement to a share of revenue. A share of a patent's revenues is a valuable quasi-ownership interest guaranteed by some contract terms, so any sales or other dealings that might impact it could be challenged by the contract holder. Even if any challenge is ultimately unsuccessful, having your portfolio encumbered by tens of thousands of people with some kind of claim on it is undesirable.
Here is an example of one that is not exactly it (for reason stated above), but similar enough to illustrate absurdity: Think of a Firefox plug-in that would let you right-click at a certain point on a long web page (e.g. on a word, a highlighted paragraph, anyplace .. that is a couple pages down on a long news article) and choose "Bookmark". This would save a "Bookmark" to your toolbar that you could later click and it would not only take you to the web page, but also scroll you to the exact spot you were at before on the page.
This type of stupid simple functionality ... would actually be patented by IBM. Yes .. that functionality had already really existed in one form or another, from multiple methods, yet ... no other company had the absurd gall and audacity to try to actually patent it. You would now search this patent # on USPTO.gov and read it and be amazed at how absurdly abstract and broad this vague function would be described. I would guess it would take you 10-15 minutes of reading and deciphering to even begin to realize what it was for (and would be as stupid simple as what I mentioned above). This is IBM's patent machine.
I can't speak for IBM's research divisions, but I know of no quota for other IBM practitioners (say in one of their services divisions). It is a "badge of honor" in someways (or so they think for some of those folks that submit this stupid crap) as you do have a "Patents" section on the internal profile intranet where it lists if you are a (co)-creator of any patents. Of they hundreds I've seen on people's profile, I don't recall seeing anything meaningful. Mostly of the type that we talk about in places like this as "Patent Troll" material.
