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

On Sep 24, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Fish (David B. Trout) wrote:

> 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.
> 

Well, that copy seems odd for a legal document from the 1950's - not double spaced and so forth. I didn't see anything substantially different in it from my copy though. 

IBM probably committed to the decree for financial reasons, rather than any reasons of "fairness." In short, it cost less to comply with this negotiated treaty (err- decree) rather than to fight it out.  Remember the vast majority of money to be spent in R&D was yet to come. The 360 was still 8 years in the future. 

IBM was trying to lock up the computer business, and the then seven dwarfs were fighting it tooth and nail. Nobody but nobody back then had any idea of how fast computers were going to take off.

IBM, or more accurately, Thomas Watson, quite literally bet the company on the development of the 360's, and part of the risk in that bet was the decree. He got by the board with the risk because the sales department thought they could sell a few of them to government and research. Less than 30 if memory serves me correctly. 

How wrong can you be? 

Surely, if the decree had came 10 years later, IBM would not have agreed to it. 

> 
>> 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?
> 

Depends. Is it technology the inventor freely gave away? Like Hercules? Gcc? etc.?

Or is it technology still marketed and sold with vigor, like telephone service? 

It's all tied up with property rights. I might have alluded to being a bit libertarian, and one of the things most libertarians tend to agree on is that all rights derive from property rights. (The first one, of course, being that you own your body and can whatever the heck you want to do with it. Amazing how many people think they are owned by their country or whatever...) 

If you own something, you should be able to choose whether you want to distribute it, and on what terms. 


> We all use technology we did not create to take advantage of business
> situations.
> 
> Every day.
> 
> Is that wrong?
> 

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Patent trolls are evil, but not because they want to get paid for the IP. Because of the way they go about it. 

That is just my opinion though, you are quite welcome to disagree. I don't mind. :) 

-Paul


> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 



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