Re: Re: slanted article "Inside System Storage -- by Tony Pearson"

We will just have to agree to disagree on this Paul. I can see where you are coming from though. 

I do not see where IBM has anyone BTB's, as you say. I see people who think the IBM products are quite superior, and are willing to pay for that - you see people being held hostage, as it were. 

One other thing I will dispute - IBM customers did NOT pay for the IBM R&D. 

IBM Customers paid for IBM products, delivered to their satisfaction, properly installed and running, and with a heck of a lot of high powered assistance. 

IBM took those profits and choose to re-invest them, which is hardly a "predatory practice" - but the profits were for goods delivered. 

There is a huge difference between that and what you seem to be saying. The closest analogy to what you are saying I can think of is if you, on your own time, and your own dime, developed something, and your company claimed they paid for it because they paid your salary.  

A company might as well claim they have rights to your house because they paid you the salary you used to pay the mortgage.

Silly, right? 

And yes, I have been asked to sign silly employment contracts that do just exactly that, but wise rabbit that I am, those folks either modified their contracts or else we never came to terms. 

That's just my opinion of course. 

On Sep 23, 2010, at 3:55 AM, kerravon86 wrote:

> --- In [email protected], Paul Raulerson <paul.raulerson@...> wrote:
> >
> > I see your point, but Dell's business is built on 
> > an entirely different premise than IBM's. Dell 
> > is setup to produce the lowest cost devices it can, 
> > then market and deliver them to a mass market 
> > audience with the lowest overhead possible. 
> 
> Because Dell has competition.
> 
> > IBM developed and paid for 
> 
> IBM customers paid for ...
> 
> > proprietary technology that is not "mass market" 
> > by any definition.
> 
> and customers now find themselves locked in to
> a monopoly on both hardware and software.
> 
> Yes, if you go to extraordinary lengths, you can
> wean yourself off of IBM's monopoly. How sad that
> that's your only choice to avoid IBM holding your
> balls in a vice.
> 
> > > Now suppose that IBM decided to increase
> > > mainframe pricing by a factor of 10, what would happen?
> > > 
> > The person making that decision would be immediately 
> > "retired" and his successor would roll back the pricing.
> 
> It's already 10 times what comparable software
> would cost. IBM has no reason to roll back the
> pricing. They have an incentive to hold your
> balls in a vice.
> 
> > That's what a Board of Directors is there for, 
> > to oversee the company and ensure that it remains 
> > healthy, profitable, and ethical. 
> 
> Um, "ethical" would mean "doing what is best
> for shareholders, regardless of personal opinion".
> 
> > Take a look at this board - these folks have integrity. 
> > 
> > http://www.ibm.com/investor/governance/board-of-directors.wss
> 
> I clicked the link, and didn't see where their
> integrity score was listed, and would have
> serious doubts that a benchmark for that even
> exists. Although this is the internet, so I'm
> half-expecting a link to some online test for
> that.
> 
> Regardless, as before, any "assumed integrity"
> by the board of directors should be, and presumably
> is, dedicated to doing nothing more than what is
> best for shareholders.
> 
> Shareholders LOVE having humungous profits.
> 
> > But they left the business when it became obvious 
> > that IBM no longer had to cater to them per the 
> > consent decree. Those companies made money pretty 
> > much only because IBM was not allowed to openly 
> > compete with them. 
> 
> ??? IBM did openly compete with them.
> 
> > And since then, IBM has provided so many innovations, 
> > z/OS, zSeries, and dozens and dozens of products 
> > upgrades, it isn't even the same scene anymore. 
> 
> So? Buy them!!! No-one cares if you buy any of
> those products. The dispute is that IBM is using
> predatory practices trying to strangle any
> competition by refusing to sell one of those
> components (z/OS) because they want to force you
> to buy their hardware as well.
> 
> Now you said that this is the free market, and
> IBM can thus do whatever it wants.
> 
> Does that include hiring hitmen to take out
> the CEO of Amdahl etc?
> 
> What about bribing/intimidating 3rd party
> vendors to not sell their products to anyone
> who owns a non-IBM machine?
> 
> Who are we to interfere with IBM's natural
> predatory tactics?
> 
> What sort of world do you want to live in?
> It's a fact of nature (not evil) that if left
> alone, natural monopolies arise. Did you oppose
> the breaking up of Bell?
> 
> Honestly, if you're not willing to break up a
> monopoly, the tree-huggers really do have a point.
> These big companies hurt society if they ever
> get into a monopolistic position.
> 
> > whose ear comes within chewing distance. However, 
> > I really love Hercules. And I want to 
> > see it totally legitimated,
> 
> I thought it already was.
> 
> > and totally accepted in the mainframe world. 
> 
> There's only one entity that doesn't accept it.
> You should be speaking to them, not us.
> 
> > I just do not see that happening by the community 
> > being so negative to IBM. 
> 
> Funny, I thought it was IBM being negative.
> 
> > It reminds me of a teenage 
> > going on about how UNFAIR it all is. Usually because 
> > he is being made to complete his chores before an 
> > allowance or special privilege is granted. 
> 
> No special privileges have been requested. A
> normal sale of z/OS was all that was requested.
> 
> > This is very much a similar situation - we want 
> > big daddy IBM to give us something, 
> 
> No, not give. Sell. I was told that in Australia
> IBM couldn't refuse to sell like that, but I have
> my doubts.
> 
> > and we are acting rather obnoxious about it. 
> 
> Funny, I thought IBM was the one being obnoxious,
> telling lies about Hercules, developed with much
> blood, sweat and tears, having violated a list
> of patents.
> 
> Is it really possible to be more obnoxious than
> that?
> 
> They should be sued for slander.
> 
> > Look at some of the comments about IBM in this 
> > thread, and check the words that were used. 
> 
> Instead of worrying about the reaction to slander
> by a monopoly, perhaps do something about the
> original slander by the monopoly?
> 
> > They are not very polite. 
> 
> Lying about an innocent person is not a good way
> to guarantee a polite response.
> 
> > For heavens sake, we should be advocating 
> > everything amazing and good about Hercules - 
> > not deriding IBM. 
> 
> Or perhaps IBM shouldn't be deriding Hercules?
> The outright lies are particularly distasteful.
> 
> In fact, I challenge you to find a single
> untrue statement by anyone related to TurboHercules
> about IBM.
> 
> > I will point out that just about everything I 
> > love about mainframes - the hardware, the software, 
> > the history, is thanks to efforts by IBM.
> 
> ... is thanks to huge sums of money paid by
> IBM customers, yes. Did they get a good deal?
> No, not really. But there wasn't any realistic
> alternative but to hand over the $$$.
> 
> > Almost everything that is - lots of other stuff 
> > I love too. Hercules for instance. Linux, 
> > Dave River's and Co. Assembler, SHARE, and more. 
> > But NONE of it, not one thing, would exist if 
> > IBM had not put the company on the line half a 
> > century ago, and developed the thing.
> 
> None of it would exist, had IBM not been in the
> fortunate position of having a whole lot of
> people's balls in vices.
> 
> Please don't make them out to be some sort of
> charitable organization. They're one of the
> two biggest monopolistic predatory entities on
> the planet. The other is Microsoft.
> 
> > And most of it would not exist if they had not
> > kept investing in it, and selling it, and 
> > making it better and better and better. 
> 
> It would not exist had IBM not been in the fortunate
> position of being about to gouge people till they
> cried. Or left the mainframe entirely, at great
> (but once-off) expense.
> 
> > So let me turn the question around - what can 
> > we do with Hercules that would:
> > (1) Allow IBM to remain in control of their products and brands?
> 
> They already are in control. They have so much
> control that they can even lock out alternative
> hardware, by refusing to sell the software.
> 
> There used to be some restriction on that
> predatory practice, which allowed Amdahl etc
> to exist at all. Some goofball took off that
> restriction.
> 
> > (2) Encourage or enable research or development 
> > into mainframe subjects?
> 
> How about - the same way it is done on Unix?
> Without that whole monopoly thing.
> 
> > (3) Decrease internal costs of mainframe support and training?
> 
> Competition?
> 
> > (4) Encourage widespread but controlled development 
> > of new mainframe software
> 
> More than one vendor?
> 
> > (5) Encourage or enable the use of Linux on mainframes
> 
> That's an objective? What's wrong with MVS?
> 
> > (6) Enable embedded mainframe programs in very small devices? 
> 
> That's an objective?
> 
> > (7) ????
> 
> End monopolies and introduce competition?
> 
> > (8) ????
> 
> End predatory practices and outright slander?
> 
> > That's the kind of stuff we should be showing and advocating. 
> 
> Especially 7 and 8.
> 
> > That's the kind of stuff I believe will get us where we want to go. 
> 
> You seem to want to go to a world where IBM controls
> 100% of the commercial pie, as is the case now for
> CPUs at any rate, and don't see anything wrong with that.
> 
> You aren't "we". (I'm not saying I am either, but in
> this case, you're not even in the majority as far as
> I can see - you seem to be in some fringe group - even
> going as far as calling their board of directors
> "ethical" and we should put our trust in them - wtf?
> In the traditional sense of the word "ethical", they
> would have sacked the CEO after the first slander of
> TurboHercules violating patents, profusely apologized
> for that (ie every single board member, both on behalf
> of the company, and as an individual), and then resigned
> en-masse for good measure - did I blink and miss all
> that?).
> 
> BFN. Paul.
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hercules-advocacy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hercules-advocacy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    hercules-advocacy-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/