RE: Re: News - Commercial Version of Hercules - Turbo Hercules

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of kerravon86
> Sent: 10 April 2010 13:06
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [hercules-advocacy] Re: News - Commercial Version of 
> Hercules - Turbo Hercules
> 
> 
> --- In [email protected], "Dave Wade" 
> <g4ugm@...> wrote:
> >
> > >I am not familiar with timing issues. As was pointed
> > >out (I think), they appear to have filed the patent
> > >years after the instruction was created and people
> > >were already emulating it. But even assuming that
> > >their timing is acceptable, and they're allowed to
> > >patent something after people have spent a lot of
> > >effort creating it - WHAT OTHER FRIGGIN CHOICE
> > >IS THERE TO MAKE A COMPATIBLE MACHINE TO RUN Z/OS
> > >AND ITS APPLICATIONS??? IBM asserting this is
> > >simply saying "we don't want any competition for
> > >our hardware, so you can't run z/OS software on
> > >anything other than our hardware".
> > 
> > Well at this point in time yes. The reasons there were Plug 
> Compatible 
> > Mainframes was because IBM was covered by Anti-Trust 
> legislation which 
> > required it to license and documents its systems and interfaces.
> 
> In this case, we don't greatly care that IBM isn't
> being forced to document its interfaces. They have
> published their interface of their own free will
> anyway - otherwise their customers can't use it.
> 
> There are some things that aren't documented very
> well (DIAG?) but we can apparently live without
> that for the time being.
> 
> > These days
> > that is no longer the case, and at present IBM has not only 
> refused to 
> > license any emulator to run 64-bit code, but it refused to renew 
> > FunSofts licenses for Flex effectively rendering many IBM CUSTOMERS
> > investment in in null and void. 
> 
> Ok, well I guess we've got an exact repeat of that
> then.
> 
> > It also bought PSI to avoid licensing code to them, and is in 
> > litigation with Neon over the use of speciality engines for running 
> > non-authorized code..
> > 
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/neon_zprime_ibm_lawsuit/
> > 
> > If you follow the threads on IBM-MAIN and IBMVM lists you will see 
> > that many people on there believe that there is something 
> > fundamentally different about the way z Series mainframes are built 
> > which makes them more reliable, and therefore have a higher 
> business 
> > value. If it allowed emulation IBM would be sending out "mixed 
> > messages" so it bans them.
> 
> This would not be a message from IBM, mixed or
> otherwise. They have no right to stop others
> from creating.
> 

But that's what software patents do. What chance has any one of convincing a
non-technical judge that a techniqueue is "obvious"!


> BFN.  Paul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>