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

Paul Raulerson wrote:

> You assume the consent decree made the competition "fair" David.

Correct.


> I'm not sure I agree with that,

A consent decree is voluntary, Paul. If it hadn't been fair then I'm rather
certain IBM would not have agreed to abide by it.

Here's the original decree:

  http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1956cd.html

Please point out which item(s) contained therein which you feel are (were)
unfair.


> though the decree did have the function of allowing
> companies to use technology they did not create to
> take advantage of business situations.

Interesting the way you put that Paul. You make it sound like using
technology others create is unfair. Why would you say that?

We all use technology we did not create to take advantage of business
situations.

Every day.

Is that wrong?


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

Irrelevant.


> 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.

Perhaps during the first 5 years of the decree, yes, but certainly no longer
than that.

But that particular order (Section XIV paragraph (b)) was only designed to
remove the barrier that IBM had constructed preventing competitors from
entering the market. Five years after entering the market however they were
on their own. They were no longer allowed access to IBM technical
information except that which IBM chose to share with them (i.e. license to
them on non-discriminatory terms). In short it was designed to introduce
*competition* into the market.

Are you claiming not allowing others to fairly compete with you is unfair?


> A situation that was hardly competitive.  Even with
> license fees.

Five years only Paul. Five. From 1952 through 1957.


> 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.

I'm sorry but that last sentence is confusing to me. Too many negatives in
it. It's unclear to me what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase it?


> 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.

That's the way things usually work in the business world. The way things
*used* to work no longer work because things change. New advances are made.
The old business methods ("business as usual") no longer work. If your
business is unable to adapt to such changes it dies. That's life.

But to try and *prevent* others from taking advantage of such changes
(gifts) simply because your business model is unable to adapt to it is
wrong. Doing so is harmful to the consumer and the industry as a whole. It
stifles competition and locks people into the old "business as usual" ways
to the sole advantage of just one company.


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

Perhaps, perhaps not. We'll have to wait and see.

-- 
"Fish" (David B. Trout) 
 [email protected]






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

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/