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

You assume the consent decree made the competition "fair" David. I'm not sure I agree with that, 
though the decree did have the function of allowing companies to use technology they did not create to take advantage of business situations. 

Ahmdahl for example, a company I really truly admire, never spent anywhere near the research dollars that IBM did. 

And before the decree expired, IBM had little incentive to put out products that were orders of magnitude faster and better, because they would have had to share that technology. A situation that was hardly competitive.  Even with license fees. 

If I license source code, object code, or an algorithm or two, I do so because I want to, and there is value in the proposition for me. Not because it is "unfair" that someone else doesn't want to sit down and duplicate or even better my work.  

On the other hand, software like Hercules, that is essentially free, is a gift almost beyond price. But one that is dangerous indeed to business as usual. 

It will probably end up in a compromise that not much of anyone is happy about. 

-Paul

On Sep 23, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Fish (David B. Trout) wrote:

> Paul Raulerson wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> 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.
> 
> IMO a more accurate/truthful wording would be:
> 
>  But they left the business when it became obvious
>  that IBM no longer had to compete fairly once the
>  consent decree expired. Those companies made money
>  pretty much only because IBM was forced to compete
>  fairly with them.
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Fish" (David B. Trout) 
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>