Re: News - Commercial Version of Hercules - Turbo Hercules
Harold Grovesteen <[email protected]> Thu, 08 Apr 2010 05:09:26 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.emulators.hercules390.advocacy |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Roger Bowler wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 7, 2010 Mike Schwab wrote: > > How about, when they license z/OS to a customer, they add a 5% > > surcharge for the IBM patents used by the emulator to be paid to the > > patent holders? > > That assumes that the alleged patents are (a) valid patents and (b) > used by the emulator. Neither of which has been established at this > point in time. > It was obvious that the selection of the patents were not based upon any actual attempt to validate Hercules usage. There are a bunch of patents relating to the coupling facility, a capability that has been documented as NOT implemented by Hercules. > > > Having analyzed a handful of the patents involved, there are serious > doubts about their validity and/or applicability to Hercules. It is > reasonable to assume that the remaining patents will be similar. > > IBM boasts the world's largest patent portfolio, but if you actually > read some of them they seem be going for quantity rather than quality. > It's pretty clear that many of the patents have never been properly > examined by the patent office, and would be rapidly demolished if they > ever came to court. > > I suspect the primary reason that IBM bought out PSI is that IBM did > not dare risk seeing any of their patents ruled invalid by a court. > If my memory serves me correctly, PSI was raising all of the old issues that got IBM in trouble in the '60's. I was in product management at NCR Comten during the IBM lawsuit in the '80's. What ultimately caused the suit to be settled out of court was the issues raised by both parties were business killers. They both ultimately decided to holster the guns and play nice. The risks of loss were too great. Whether the patent validity was the concern or going back to the consent decree of the past or both, it probably did become just too risky for IBM in the end to pursue to the end in court. > > > -- > Regards, > Roger Bowler > http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler <http://perso.wanadoo.fr/rbowler> > Hercules "I can't believe it's not a mainframe!" > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]