Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Complaint Against IBM Gets Support
FlorianMueller writes "ZDNet blogger Dana Blankenhorn reports that '[t]he efforts by open source TurboHercules to break IBM's mainframe monopoly through the European Commission got some proprietary support this week when NEON Enterprise Software LLC of Austin, Texas, filed an EU complaint alongside a US antitrust lawsuit.' NEON's founder co-founded BMC, so the company is well-funded for this fight. In comments given to the IDG News Service, IBM claims that NEON's product, which saves mainframe customers money by optimizing the use of coprocessors, 'offers no innovation,' and accuses the 'copycat' of violating IBM's intellectual property. That's basically what IBM also said about the Hercules emulator. The European Commission is expected to take a decision on an investigation in a matter of months. Since IBM lobbies the EC over the Open Document Format, it's now accused of double standards."
can we not go through this again? it's been debunked thoroughly.
This is the fault of Hercules trying to get IBM to license the way Hercules wants, not anything that is IBM's fault.
They say IBM has double standards as if this were supposed to be shocking. Microsoft has its open source lab, Apple has made threats against open source projects while contributing to other projects, Mozilla and Red Hat leverage their trademarks, etc. Corporations do whatever is profitable, they are not some bastion of morality, so why should we be shocked that IBM fights open source projects while pushing other open source projects?
Palm trees and 8
If it's an open source closed box rejigging of it, that's better for humanity. Everyone can improve upon it then.
Sorry, the last sentence lost me. How does the OpenDocument Format relate to mainframe software?
Sorry poetmatt, but Groklaw didn't debunk the issue at all. As far as NEON is concerned, Groklaw hasn't reported on it yet as far as I can see. What it wrote in April about TurboHercules was somewhere between 'grossly misleading' and 'totally wrong', and the article contains several links to verify that, for an example, IBM brought patents into play (initially calling them "intellectual property") before TurboHercules ever inquired about possible problems in that regard (see here). Also, Groklaw claimed that IBM's threat letter to TurboHercules wasn't that bad because it wasn't an actual lawsuit or cease-and-desist letter, but IBM had promised in its open source patent pledge "not to assert" a list of 500 patents (see here). And there would be more examples.
I don't think a lot of people here on slashdot agree with you (poetmatt) and Groklaw's PJ that it's a good idea for any company to sue a free and open source software startup that was founded by the same person who created the Hercules open source project in 1999. In fact, a lot of loyal Groklaw readers were disappointed and some of the activists I know (as the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents campaign) were nothing short of shocked that PJ would rush to IBM's defense with an encouragement to sue the pants off an open source company. A few may have expected it from someone who's more loyal to IBM than Rush Limbaugh is to the Republican Party.
You say that it's not "IBM's fault" that Hercules users don't get the license they'd like to get, but that's the whole point of antitrust law: curbing abuse of rights (such as intellectual property rights) by companies in a dominant market position ("dominant" is actually an understatement given that IBM has a de facto monopoly on the mainframe by now).
Here's some articles swpat.org has on these topics - but only on the software patent aspects:
Discussion over whether X company is right to defend their revenue stream etc. etc. would be outside the scope.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
In the political context that's relevant here, it's not primarily about which category of software you promote or attack. It's about the concept of interoperability. IBM's denial to make its proprietary z/OS operating system available for use on non-IBM hardware and its use of patents on a programming interface (the mainframe CPU instruction set) is an attack on interoperability. Therefore, they have a serious credibility problem when trying to tell policy-makers that other companies must make their patents available on an "open standards" basis because of interoperability being so important.
Interoperability is extremely important, no doubt about that. But in IBM's case it's too obvious that they don't want interoperability, customer choice etc. -- they use them as pretexts for their political purposes.
Even though only an Anonymous Coward just wrote that none of what I do makes sense "as far as advancing open source", I want to point out a few examples: I was involved with MySQL very early on (starting in 2001) as an adviser and small shareholder; I founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign; my FOSS Patents blog tries to help understand and deal with patent issues surrounding open source; I promote the idea of the Defensive Patent License and will most likely promote the license once it is finalized and available; and I will promote the European Commission's interoperability initiative that will affect not only dominant companies like IBM and Microsoft but also other "significant market players" and will create major new opportunities for open source. I'll blog about that one next week. I don't think these activities are accurately described as "FUD".
This seems structurally comparable to the legal and moral frou-frou over running MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
Discuss.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even though it was posted by an Anonymous Coward I'll try to shed light on what's been said:
My understanding is that the EU restricted Microsoft from shipping Windows with IE, etc without presenting users with the other available options. They did not state that Microsoft's programs must be allowed to run on any platform.
Microsoft doesn't tie its software to hardware. What the European Commission and the EU's Court of First Instance determined was that Microsoft tied is operating system to certain additional components (initially the Media Player; later on, the browser case you mentioned also came up), meaning you could only buy Windows if you also bought the Media Player.
In fact, all of the cases with Apple and OS/X requiring Apple hardware would suggest that there's plenty of precedent that opposes your argument.
An antitrust regulator can only intervene against a company that has a dominant market position. IBM has a mainframe monopoly, so it's obviously dominant. Microsoft was considered dominant for desktop PC operating systems. Concerning Apple, I know experts who believe they're dominant as an online music distributor. But the Mac isn't a dominant platform in terms of market share. Simply put, if you're a little guy in the market, you don't get regulated, but monopolists, quasi-monopolists and other dominant players do get regulated. That's why company A getting away with something isn't necessarily a precedent for similar behavior by a dominant company B.
The European Commission now intends to also create interoperability requirements, by way of a new law, for other "significant market players", but that's just for your additional information and doesn't relate to IBM's mainframe monopoly, for which we have antitrust law in place already. For Apple, that new initiative could make a major difference.
The point of competition rules isn't that dominant players have to give anything away for free. What regulators and courts can do is require a dominant player to "untie" and to make an important component (such as an operating system) available separately on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. There can be a lot of discussion about what kinds of licensing terms (especially license fees) are FRAND, but in case of doubt that would be determined by a court of law.
Both companies want to use IBM products in a manor that IBM doesn't want their product to be used. This is not about communication between an IBM product and other products.
Just try to think of the situation of those mainframe customers with an estimated 300 billion lines of program code (most of it in COBOL) still in use. They want to use that code, in which they've invested exorbitant amounts of money over the years, on non-IBM hardware, typically Intel-based servers, which is what Hercules can technically enable. This is about interoperability between the existing programs ("legacy code") and newer hardware.
In my view emulation is a particularly important interoperability issue because it's closely related to the concept of virtualization.
I've used open source emulators such as VICE (Commodore computers from the 1980's) and those are fun and it would be very disappointing if companies could shut such emulators down too easily. While a Commodore emulator is mostly about fun and nostalgia, mainframe emulation is absolutely key in order to open that market in which IBM has a hardware monopoly by now.
TurboHercules and NEON file antitrust lawsuits against IBM, then cry foul because IBM isn't going to roll over and take it.
This seems structurally comparable to the legal and moral frou-frou over running MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
Discuss.
Happy to discuss and explain this.
The difference is that the Mac is a very popular platform but it's hard to see how one could claim that MacOS is a dominant operating system. It certainly isn't for desktops because the EU considered Windows to be dominant and under antitrust law you can at the most have one dominant player per market segment, never two. For smartphones, Apple would argue that Nokia still ships more units, that the total number of Android-based units sold is growing fast and probably also above the iPhone now, and they would point out that RIM is still a formidable competitor that grows fast and has a loyal customer base.
If competition is intact in a market, then regulators can't intervene even if they want. The theory is that competition should then take care of the problem, as a self-regulatory mechanism, meaning that if customers find Apple too restrictive, they might switch. I'll get back to Apple in a moment, but now on IBM:
IBM has a mainframe monopoly by now. That's the most extreme case of market dominance and it's where antitrust law comes in and can result in regulatory intervention. That's why the European Commissioned imposed a variety of requirements and levied hefty fines on Microsoft. Concerning IBM, there have already been antitrust cases going back to the 1950's, on that kind of basis.
But policy-makers have also begun to realize that Apple's customers -- all those fanboys who spent a lot of money on apps and phone charges -- should also get more protection. Right now they're beyond reach for traditional antitrust law. That's why the EU is preparing a legislative initiative to impose certain interoperability requirements on companies like Apple in order to protect consumers. For the mainframe market that new law isn't needed because IBM is clearly dominant (that term is an understatement for IBM's position in that market).
if they continue with their lawsuit against IBM then IBM might consider using this list of patents against them. [...] I think software patents suck, but using a lawsuit to try to force someone to do something that they don't want to sucks just as much.
Let me inform you then that this is incorrect in three important ways:
This blog posting contains links to all four letters exchanged between the two entities from July 2009 to March 2010. The antitrust complaint was filed in March. The first time IBM said that the Hercules emulator is an "infringing platform" and claimed that its "intellectual property" (in that case, as a synonym for "patents") was violated was in November 2009 -- four to five months before the antitrust complaint.
You say "lawsuit" but TurboHercules never filed a lawsuit. A complaint with an antitrust regulator is something different. It means that the regulator is informed of what someone considers anticompetitive conduct. The regulator then takes a look and will only take action if it concludes that this must be pursued in the public interest. The case then doesn't go to court, at least not in Europe, but if the company that's being investigated (which in this case would be IBM if and when an investigation starts) wanted to appeal the ruling, it could go to court later. Again, TurboHercules didn't go to court.
The other respect in which this is wrong is that IBM never said that TurboHercules should withdraw its antitrust complaint or else would face IP infringement. If you look at the correspondence between the companies, it's clear that TurboHercules had only asked IBM for an offer of reasonable business terms that would allow the use of z/OS in emulation mode. The complaint was lodged in March 2010, and considering that the first polite letter asking IBM for an offer was written in July 2009 and flatly turned down, they decided at some point that they needed help. From an access-to-justice point of view it's very important that such a fledgling company can ask a regulator for help because otherwise the big bully on the block can do to the little guy whatever the bully wants...
Who the hell accepted a post from Florian Mueller? (Looks) Oh...
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Wrong. The courts in the USA have held in the Apple vs Pystar case that tying an OS to specific proprietary hardware is a perfectly legit business strategy as it creates a barrier to entry.
Please have a look at this other comment of mine here on slashdot explaining why the Apple case isn't a precedent for the IBM mainframe monopoly issue. And it also explains why Apple may in the future also have to provide interoperability because of a new EU law that's in the making, but under today's antitrust law comparing Apple to IBM is the same as comparing apples to bananas.
They chose a proprietary platform at the beginning and now they're stuck with the lock-in. When you get on the proprietary plane that's the cost of the ticket. They bought their tickets they knew what they were getting into I say let 'em crash
That's what you can say but regulators have to apply the law as it stands and monopolists aren't allowed to preserve a lock-in by whatever means they please.
I can agree with you in part that the mainframe situation will clearly serve as a lesson for those who are affected by it and by others who take a look at it, and yes, this is an issue that doesn't happen with Free and Open Source Software.
But when 80% of the world's data are crunched by a legacy architecture, it's not economically reasonable (and therefore not politically responsible) to leave those locked-in customers in the lurch when there's antitrust law in place to solve the problem in whole or at least in part.
It's not an anti-trust situation because the situation you describe is exactly the same as Apple's whole business model which has been upheld with legal precedent.
It's not a precedent, and I explained it in this other comment here on slashdot.
However, they cannot use any copyrighted or patented technology that IBM created in order to do so.
An emulator needs to interpret the CPU instruction set (that of the CPU that is emulated). In its letters to TurboHercules, IBM took the position that an emulator doing its job is an "infringing platform".
IBM is under no obligation to assist them in creating or maintaining their emulator.
TurboHercules' letters don't state that, nor have I stated it.
Any company is free to compete in the mainframe market by offering their own hardware and software solution.
As you can see, IBM doesn't want anyone to do so and instead uses its "intellectual property" rights in order to preserve its monopoly.
If they can't convince customers to switch to their platform from IBM's that is just capitalism at work.
Capitalism needs at least a certain level of regulation and intervention (after the subprime crisis and now the BP oil spill, most people have probably raised the standard for the level that's required. Capitalism can work with very little regulation or sometimes even none at all if competition is intact. When there's no competition (which is the self-healing force of capitalism), then antitrust comes into play. The US is the epitome of Western capitalism, but it's also the country that invented antitrust law in the 19th century when recognizing what can go wrong if a monopolist can do whatever he wants. The Sherman Act wasn't an anticapitalist initiative. It was meant to make sure capitalism continues to work.
Dear IBM:
I would like to profit from the billions you've invested since the early 1960s in System/360 and OS/360, up to and including the current zArchitecture, z/OS, and all of the software that runs on that platform. (I've found some open source project that lets me do this with minimal investment on my part!)
Now I know many firms have grown large and profitable filling gaps in and adding value to the z/OS ecosystem, but I'd rather make my money by trying to cannibalize your business. I had assumed you'd let me license your premier operating system for a pittance, but it appears I was wrong.
I know I'm asking you to let me gnaw away at your customer base, asking you to deal with the customer support problems if my emulator isn't a perfect implementation of the zArchitecture Principles of Operation and the interface specifications for all of the other emulated hardware, and am offering only modest licensing fees compared with your cumulative and ongoing investments. But think of it from my point of view. I've already printed brochures! I have a Web site. What about my sunk costs?
It may be a terrible business decision for IBM, but c'mon. Have a little heart for the little guy.
Unicorns and kittens,
Your new BFF
... apparently so they could throw the list they ASKED for in IBM's face.
The Linux Foundation's largest financier is IBM. Therefore, it's obvious that they'll dismiss complaints over IBM's anticompetitive behavior and its overall hypocrisy.
Concerning Groklaw, I don't want to make claims as to who funds it (although a lot of people have previously - not in this discussion here but elsewhere - voiced theories that might make sense), but there's no doubt that it's been slavishly loyal to IBM all along. Like I said, Groklaw's PJ is more loyal to IBM than Rush Limbaugh is to the Republican Party. Even if PJ doesn't disclose anything, I venture to guess Rush Limbaugh makes a lot of money, so the Republican Party can't afford him as a staffer.
TurboHercules SAS isn't cannibalizing IBM's customer base for one simple reason: IBM abandoned the segment of the customer base that Hercules can satisfy a long time ago. They just don't sell small mainframes any more. The z/PDT, their emulator, is only available under highly restrictive conditions that essentially rule out anything but program testing.
As for problems from emulation bugs, IBM dealt with their software running on other people's hardware for decades, and know how to do it. The support requirements are simple: a software bug must first be demonstrated on IBM hardware before it is considered to be a bug IBM has to fix. That's the way it's always worked, and TurboHercules SAS understands and accepts that.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
... apparently so they could throw the list they ASKED for in IBM's face.
This claim that they ASKED for the list is misinformation because it omits an essential fact: IBM said that Hercules infringed its intellectual property (using that term as a synonym for "patents", which is what many lawyers do) out of the blue (or Blue, if you will). TurboHercules had not asked any question about potential "intellectual property" infringement when IBM did it. Then TurboHercules wanted to know what kind of "intellectual property" (the term is so broad it could theoretically mean a plant variety right...) was involved. All of those letters (four in total, two from either company) have been published and you can find links to them in this blog posting. The chronology is perfectly clear, so I hope this clarification helps.
Look at it this way: If I told you you infringe some of my intellectual property, wouldn't you also then want to know what I meant by the term?
Read the correspondence. IBM said "you're infringing our IP" in their second letter. TurboHercules SAS merely asked them to be specific in what they were referring to.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Airline industry to invest just 1.8 per cent of revenue in 2010
Many airline systems remained locked on legacy mainframe systems and databases, with cost-saving consolidation initiatives that have been widely implemented in other industries such as virtualisation andcloud computing having made little impact so far.
I thought the z10 BC was a small mainframe.
This is simply false. The smallest current generation 'mainframe' IBM sells is the 2098-A01, which runs at a paltry 28 MIPS, and can run any z/OS workload. The largest is the 2097-764, which runs at 30000 MIPS. In between those two extremes are several hundred more models to choose from. Almost any emulation is going to run better than 28 MIPS.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The main problem is that you and TurboHercules are being entirely unreasonable.
You can compare what the TurboHercules company says to what I say, but I want to make it clear that it's not necessarily the same. I view a lot of issues here the way they do, but not all of them, and vice versa I guess.
You do not only want IBM to license z/OS on other platforms
I think a company in a dominant market position should be required to do so. I believe that TurboHercules also thinks so, which is why they filed their antitrust complaint after trying unsuccessfully for a long time to enter into negotiations with IBM. They wrote their first letter to IBM in July 2009 and got turned down (four months later); then wrote another one asking IBM to reconsider, and four months later were turned down again. So they tried in good faith but IBM didn't even want to have a reasonable conversation.
you want IBM to forget that they invested billions of dollars in the platform, and give the results of all that investment away for free.
No one forgets that, and no one wants IBM to forget it. And most importantly, no one demands anything for free. TurboHercules asked in its first letter (for links to the entire correspondence, please check here) for a reasonable offer. They didn't ask for anything free of charge.
Would you be happier if IBM opened the licensing for z/OS (ending the anti-trust claims), then turned around and sued for patent infringement?
This is not a question for me to answer. The regulators have the complaints on the table (not only the one from TurboHercules but also others, such as NEON) and if the European Commission launches an in-depth investigation into IBM's practices, then it's up to the EC to determine what it would consider a satisfactory outcome. And even if they have a satisfactory outcome at some point, they could always launch a new investigation later if necessary.
I've never even seen a mainframe, so I have this question: What sort of programming interfaces exist? Are there a lot of of the shelf proprietary software running on the mainframes or are there mostly in-house software? In both cases, is it really that hard to migrate to another mainframe vendor? Oracle, HP, Unisys or Groupe Bull? And if it isn't, then why claim IBM has a monopoly?
-- Linux user #369862
Priced a 2098-A01 lately? By the time you add DASD, you're well over a half million bucks. The low end of the market isn't going to be able to afford that.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
You're not going to win this one. Whatever your reason for taking up this absurd mission, it's lost. There will be no grand grassroots campaign to demonize IBM for this because in this particular case they've done nothing wrong.
Now give it up before you do your reputation and your cause any more damage.
Or don't. I'm not exactly wishing you luck in either case. It's just annoying to watch you try.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Wait a sec, I thought your argument was that they don't offer a small mainframe, so you weren't taking their sales. Now it would appear as what you meant was they don't offer a CHEAP mainframe, and you do want to take their sales. Which is it?
Maybe [your comments] are not strictly FUD, but it doesn't prevent them from being incorrect.
TurboHercules wants IBM to allow the OS they developed for the patented hardware they developed it to be run on to be licensed to run on emulators that TurboHercules will sell.
TH didn't license any of the underlying technology, and did not develop IBM-compatible hardware that does not violate the patents in question. TH was banking on IBM's pledge (intended to support FOSS development) not to assert patents to be their protection against sniping at *hardware* sales of IBM.
The fact that copyright and software are involved in this discussion is secondary to the issue at hand.
The Open Source Hercules project is not in trouble for creating the emulator. That's a simple fact. TurboHercules has garnered a strong "no" response to their inquiry about grabbing some of IBM's existing business. Another fact. Neither of these facts has a significant bearing on IBM's relationship to FOSS in general, or to their patent pledge.
Is TurboHercules saying "hey, if we can't share some licensing revenue, we'll kill the Hercules project"? Does it matter if they do? That's the beauty of FOSS...just because they have sour grapes over a problematic business plan, doesn't mean that the project has to die.
IBM has a problem with a competing (copycat) platform that TH is proposing which would cut in on the low end (and eventually the high end) of IBM's mainframe sales...not with the Hercules project itself.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Your argument was that IBM didn't abandon the low end. I was answering that. That's not a low end machine, especially when you consider that its performance is artificially hobbled to protect IBM's lockin. You can buy the same processor - in fact, it's in the original box, just turned off - as an IFL (dedicated Linux processor) for a tenth that price.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
I'm devising an archival method, but archive.org is actually doing a 90% complete job already, so it's not priority #1.
Anti-swpat campaigns have gathered masses of great data and documents over the years, but it's never well organised. To an outsider, it's opaque. I've worked on various such campaigns over the past eight years, and I know where to find most things, and I know how much of a problem the mess is. So I'm documenting all this insider-knowledge so that anyone else can do the work I do.
There are a lot of links because I believe that statements on wikis should be backed up, and I want readers to be able to dig further into any topic on the wiki.
Without links, it would just be a blog of personal opinions.
If you click around, you'll see that there is indeed analysis and the important parts of documents are quoted at whatever length necessary.
And no, en.swpat.org isn't written by Florian. There have been a half-dozen edits to articles about German topics from anonymous users, so some of them could be him, but that's it. Here's who writes most of en.swpat.org: Ciaran O'Riordan. He also shaved my face this morning. Nice guy.
Why did I post the links? Well, why did someone mod it +1 Informative?
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Well, the other vendors that they licensed z/OS to also did this little thing called giving something in return, which Hercules/TurboHercules would just rather ignore. Exactly WHAT do you have to offer IBM? Cross-licenses for patents? License fees?
I can't speak for TurboHercules and confirm what they want, but one thing is obvious to me: they filed an antitrust complaint and antitrust law isn't about freebies -- it's about fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing. I'm sure their lawyers told them that if they ask the European Commission for help, a FRAND license is the best possible outcome and a free lunch won't be achievable under the law. They can always ask IBM to add more patents to the pledge (anyone can, including other FOSS projects who feel threatened or potentially threatened), but that's separate from the antitrust issues involved.
IBM has a problem with a competing (copycat) platform that TH is proposing which would cut in on the low end (and eventually the high end) of IBM's mainframe sales...not with the Hercules project itself.
You make a distinction that's totally baseless. The TurboHercules offering is 100% the open source software plus they sell you services and if you want you can get a server resold by them. That's a typical FOSS approach to doing business. You can't call TurboHercules a "copycat" without simultaneously saying the same about the Hercules open source project.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about anymore. A 2097-A01 costs approx $97000. An IFL costs $125000. I fail to see how an IFL is one tenth of the price, or what that has to do with anything anyway. Furthermore, how does artificially hobbling protect IBM's lock-in? Are you actually trying to say that these boxes (which IBM makes a profit on) are TOO competitive?
The low end of the market isn't even going to need a mainframe, Jay. What's your point? This isn't even accurate.
The groups that can afford and see use for a mainframe purchase one. surprise?
Are you kidding me? TH claimed they didn't even know there were patents until AFTER they filed the complaint. It seems far more likely that they filed the complaint, found out about the patents, and said 'we're screwed'. At that point they decided the best course of action was to get a few easily taken-in people to start a smear campaign against IBM.
I think you are entirely correct that a free lunch won't be achievable, so what FOSS license supports third-party patents?
and again, they did not do anything. figuratively, You saw a big minefield, read the "beware of mines" sign, and didn't enter.
This wasn't a policeman throwing you back from the sign, or arresting you, or any legal or other response.
You just flipped the hell out and said oh my god IBM is coming after me I'm scared someone hold me! I don't know where your knowledge is in the corporate world, but if IBM was legitimately concerned (instead of saying this isn't a good idea), they would have done a hell of a lot more than an email or written letter to you. Or as an idea, who knows, maybe they would ask to speak to you in person or something polite!
What you have now caused, is IBM a lot of stress, and causes Florian to attack the GPL. It also denies the fact that Hercules is easily in the wrong by asking IBM to change their license for turbohercules. How is this a good response?
Way to go, Jay.
You make it hard to respond to your questions. You come up with some speculation and diversion in the first paragraph and then in the second paragraph you ask a question that's unrelated to everything I said.
Of course there's no FOSS license that overrules patent law. But there's a code of ethics in open source. Google's chief lawyer said clearly - when I asked him at a conference two weeks ago - that they think using patents against open source is a bad idea and they won't do it. I've quoted him in this blog posting.
It's the "plus" part that's the problem...they want to sell a platform identical to IBM's without a licensing agreement. They asked for one, and IBM said "no" (to recap what I already said). That is *not* a typical FOSS approach, and we're not talking about *software*, we're talking about *hardware*.
Emulation is fine...IBM has said they have no problem with that software project. A competitor wanting to sell a complete platform that directly competes is *not* fine, and has nothing to do with the fact that Hercules built an emulator.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Florian's not attacking the GPL. Neither am I (even though I oppose it on principle, I'm not attacking it).
Nobody's asking IBM to change their license. This is a PJ fabrication from whole cloth.
As for causing IBM a whole lot of stress, all they have to do is say that they will not assert their patents against Hercules. Any of them. That would solve my problem. Why isn't IBM doing that, especially in light of the (deserved, IMAO) bad PR they've gotten? There's just one reason: they are keeping the option open for a later attack. Would you be comfortable with that sword of Damocles hanging over your head? I'm sure not, and nobody who works on open source software should be, either.
Two words: "chilling effect".
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Did you ask Google's lawyer if they would support a direct competitor, who happens to be using an OSS project that infringes Googles patents?
They didn't send anything to him AT ALL. They sent solicited private correspondence to a company he is supposedly not involved with, and that company made it public to start a smear campaign.
You're so full of shit it's amazing you can stand.
Look at my user ID. I was here before groklaw ever existed. Nobody "sent" me here. I have never worked for IBM. I don't need anyone else to tell me you're a jerk - your posts speak for themselves.
Go cry a river somewhere else, because the old-timers here aren't going to buy it.
It isn't IBM that's making the issue of it - it was mentioned by them in passing. The real issues are:
The customer doesn't care about patents - they want a guarantee - from IBM - that their data is secure, available, and that IBM will be there to fix it - before it fails ... they don't want to have the problems of the PC world, where Microsoft says "it's the hardware - complain to HP" and HP says "It's the driver - complain to Samsung" and Samsung says "It's the operating system - complain to Microsoft".
The patent "issue" is just FUD. And if you look at the insinuations Mueller's been making - in typical FUD fashion - the next question is "What's in it for him?"
Florian - you've accused others of being paid operatives. Who's paying you to spread this latest fud-fest?
After 13 years of trying to prove what wasn't true, in 1982 the U.S. Department of Justice dropped its antitrust case against IBM's mainframe business. In 1982, IBM mainframes had a much bigger share of the computing landscape. How could anyone possibly believe in 2010 that IBM's mainframe business is in any way monopolistic? Unless you think that Coca-Cola has a monopoly in Minute Maid-branded orange juice, or Toyota has a monopoly in Prius automobiles. (And that sort of argument ought to go over particularly well in Europe, home of the strongest brand names in the world, like Gucci, Prada, D&G, and Chanel.)
Prove it.
How about years of investment designed to meet the needs of very high volume and very high reliability... Reservations systems, banking systems (the one's with your account balance), telephone orders and equipment systems.... these are all $1M/minute for down time Bet-the-business systems that never quit, never fail, and do millions of transactions per day.
The serious people that run these shops know how to do cost/benefit analysis... they still use IBM equipment because it best meets their needs. Fur instance, while at Qwest, deploying changes to five sets of main frame applications for DSL service, I leaned about their GeoMax product - the DWDM fiber optic channel to connect two data centers, each with SysPlex mainframe clusters, for microsecond sync should the business have an outage of a full data center - spending millions per year "extra" to avoid $Ms/minute outages.
http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/advantages/gdps/index.html
IBM Geographically Dispersed Parallel Sysplex (GDPS)
Yes, at my current bank client we are tied to COBOL code that would take way north of $500M to replace. So what. If we had - I dunno java (or maybe that fantastic London stock exchange .net code) we would still need the MF to process, with at least 5 9's reliability, the zillions of transactions per day of other people's money.
ahem.
Should I hit the AC button on this or own up to the metaphor in my mind?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I'd like to see IBM support z/OS under Hercules. It would certainly be handy to be able to run up a test platform without enormous expense, and would certainly introduce a lot of new people to how things are done on 'big iron'. They own the product - they can licence it how they like. But I'd love to be able to play sysprog with a modern OS. Good for me, good for IBM?
You know how many comments PJ deleted on that last story, right?
Oh, wait, you wouldn't know. Because she deletes them so that people can't even see them. And why is she always attacking the person instead of their ideas?
Anyhow, actually, I personally commented quite a bit on the TH issue. If you read what they wrote, TH offers nothing but support for the Hercules emulator, which is under an OSI-approved license (you can say it's not really open source, but this is the relevant part).
They try to deal with IBM, and IBM says "go away, your platform is infringing." TH says "huh? what? I thought you wrote a pledge saying you wouldn't sue people" and IBM fires back a letter saying "here's a list of hundreds of patents--including several covered by the pledge--that you might infringe upon... we're only FUDing you, though, and we're going to pretend that this isn't a transparent attempt to make you face damages for willful infringement, so we won't actually threaten to sue, we'll just quietly imply that we don't sue people into the ground if they quietly disappear."
But, if you talk to PJ on that one, it's a horrible smear job and IBM didn't try to FUD a tiny company built around an open source product to death.
Not that you'd know that, however, given that she vanished half of the comments. And you can't even tell that she did it, because they'll show up for anyone from your IP, but if you visit Groklaw from elsewhere, they're gone.
Incidentally, I have proof of that in the form of screenshots, logs and quotes.
By the time I'm writing this, the comment to which I'm replying has a Score of 0 and is categorized as a "Troll" posting. When the discussion here started, it had moved up quickly to a score of 5 and was regarded as Interesting if not Insightful.
But then there were calls on Groklaw, such as this one, to rush over here to /. and use mod points against me.
I'm sure there's a huge number of very reasonable people on Groklaw, but there's PJ and a circle of people who use such schemes to suppress the very truth that Groklaw falsely claims to dig for.
I perfectly understand that /. is meant to be a self-moderating platform. However, in order for such a system to work, mod points must be used according to reasonable standards. If a posting disagrees with Groklaw, which my comment certainly did, but does so in a polite, factual, focused and on-topic way, there's absolutely no justification for categorizing it as a "Troll" posting. It's also unacceptable to vote it down to a score of 0. It's obvious that a posting that is less popular with a certain audience won't move up as quickly as another, or that it might not move up too much at all, but a score of 0 must be justified and in this case, if you read the original comment I'm referring to (here's a link), that is not the case.
I have complained to /. management over this organized misuse of mod points and hijacking of a neutral, opinion-forming platform (which is what /. has been for a long time) by another community that certainly has a lot of overlap (hence they have mod points here).
If this kind of attack is accepted and if the same people can misuse mod points again and again, this would mean that /. is at the mercy of the hardcore, unreasonable part of the Groklaw crowd that is a minority not only on /. but even on Groklaw itself.
A competitor wanting to sell a complete platform that directly competes is *not* fine, and has nothing to do with the fact that Hercules built an emulator.
This distinction isn't supported by the facts. What you call "a complete platform" is simply a standard server from HP running the emulator in question. There's no hardware component in there that's unique and that would infringe IBM patents.
What you have now caused, is IBM a lot of stress, and causes Florian to attack the GPL.
I've never attacked the GPL. My blog is called FOSS Patents because I believe that the Free Software idea is important and must never be forgotten even though open source is the more commonly used term. I was involved with MySQL from the year the company was founded (2001, several years after the FOSS project itself started), and the GPL worked extremely well for MySQL.
Did you ask Google's lawyer if they would support a direct competitor, who happens to be using an OSS project that infringes Googles patents?
It was a conference and I wasn't the only one who had questions, so I couldn't start a back-and-forth debate there. But I'll tell you something that may surprise you now: your question is very well-taken per se. However, I quoted what Google's chief lawyer said and he didn't limit that statement to non-competing projects. So I have to take his word for it until/unless they act differently one day.
IBM's patent pledge didn't have a carve-out for competing projects, either. It was meant to benefit all software under an OSI-approved license.
Not if the MS Office license contains restrictions against it. When you legally bought MS Office all you really bought was a license that allows you to use the software. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, you can't install or use any of the software included on the Office disc. If Microsoft wanted to they could specify in the license that it can only be installed on Windows and that would be the end of using it (legally) under WINE.
IBM has a mainframe monopoly, which is more than what's needed to prove under competition law that they are in a dominant market position, and since they have a dominant market position, regulators can require them to make such licenses available on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis and can in particular prohibit the tying of one product to another if a dominant market position is used unfairly to restrict competition.
An article on the problems the government of the State of New Jersey faces due to the mainframe lock-in.
You know how many comments PJ deleted on that last story, right?
[...]
Anyhow, actually, I personally commented quite a bit on the TH issue.[...] Not that you'd know that, however, given that she vanished half of the comments. And you can't even tell that she did it, because they'll show up for anyone from your IP, but if you visit Groklaw from elsewhere, they're gone.
Incidentally, I have proof of that in the form of screenshots, logs and quotes.
Other people told me similar stories, but I haven't looked into them in greater detail so far. My focus is really on what the major players in the industry do on the commercial side and in political terms. However, since I already have a collection of material that could be used to expose Groklaw for what it is, I'd like to ask you to send me whatever you have. I got some such material sent in reply to a different call for input, where you find an email address that I use for community input. If you send it to me, I can't promise if or when I'll actually publish it, but it doesn't hurt if I have it in stock because who knows what kinds of debates may come up in the future. Please note that I don't check that email account too frequently, but I do read what I get.
And IBM has not violated their pledge in any way. They have not sued anyone. They have not sent a cease and desist letter to anyone. They have not even mentioned the existence of the patents to any member of the Hercules OSS project.
What would IBM possibly have to gain from suing anyone involved in the Hercules project? They have already taken all the action they need - they refused to license z/OS to run on it.
Neither IBM, nor Google, nor any other company who has made a similar statement has said they would actively SUPPORT a project that they felt infringed on their IP. All they have said is that they would take a passive approach and not sue. And that is exactly what they have done.
In the 10+ years of it's existence, has IBM ever sent any member of the Hercules project a cease and desist letter? Have they ever actually (not in someone's imagination) threatened a lawsuit? No. But you and a few others are trying to paint IBM's refusal to actively support a direct competitor as some sort of 'attack' on open source, and it is just plain dishonest.
I can address these claims one by one.
And IBM has not violated their pledge in any way. They have not sued anyone. They have not sent a cease and desist letter to anyone.
IBM's pledge didn't say "we won't sue or send cease-and-desist letters". It was a promise not to assert the relevant patents. For the difference between "assert" and "sue", please check out this blog posting. No one forced IBM to use the broad term "assert", but they did in the original pledge, so I don't think I'm asking for too much if I expect them to comply with it.
They have not even mentioned the existence of the patents to any member of the Hercules OSS project.
Roger Bowler, the founder of TurboHercules and the person to whom IBM addressed its letters, founded the Hercules open source project in 1999.
Jay Maynard, the current maintainer of the Hercules open source project but not employed by TurboHercules (if I recall correctly), interprets this correctly as an attack on the Hercules open source project.
Apart from this, it's not even a relevant point that you try to make. IBM's pledge wasn't limited to companies in any way. It was a promise not to assert those patents "against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software" and you can't sue bits and bytes, so obviously this includes companies. There can be no doubt about it because the pledge later makes reference to the scenario of another "party" (anyone but IBM) asserting its own patents against open source, and that passage clearly includes companies just as well.
The Wall Street Journal was right to ask: if TurboHercules doesn't qualify for the pledge, who does?
They have already taken all the action they need - they refused to license z/OS to run on it.
From a copyright perspective they can refuse, but from an antitrust point of view there can be restrictions on IPR owners and the way they exercise their rights. In my opinion this tying of z/OS to IBM-only hardware should be prohibited as tying based on the case law established in the EU in the original Microsoft antitrust case, based on the fact that IBM is no less dominant in the mainframe market than Microsoft was for desktop PC operating systems at the time of the decision.
Neither IBM, nor Google, nor any other company who has made a similar statement has said they would actively SUPPORT a project that they felt infringed on their IP. All they have said is that they would take a passive approach and not sue.
Google's chief lawyer said they won't "use" patents against open source. That is, like "assert", a far broader terminology than "sue", even though "use" and "sue" are anagrams.
In the 10+ years of it's existence, has IBM ever sent any member of the Hercules project a cease and desist letter? Have they ever actually (not in someone's imagination) threatened a lawsuit? No.
I explained above that (i) they had promised "not to assert" (as opposed to promising "not to sue"), and (ii) the TurboHercules company is a natural part of the Hercules community and ecosystem just like Red Hat and Novell's SuSE decision are for Linux, MySQL AB was for MySQL, etc. Should all those companies not have been included in IBM's pledge?
But you and a few others are trying to paint IBM's refusal to actively support a direct competitor as some sort of 'attack' on open source, and it is just plain dishonest.
Looking at how Google categorically dismisses it as "a bad idea" to use patents against open source, you can see that there are indeed people in the industry who share my view that the use of patents against open source is really bad stuff. I never claimed that they sued, I never claimed that they sent a formal cease-and-desi
That doesn't mean to say that there can be a point where people have to accept responsibility -- but the standard to apply must be a reasonable one, not a theoretical one that doesn't reflect reality.
corrected version: That doesn't mean to say that there CAN'T ...
Ah, so we're down to playing word games. Funny how you can so narrowly quote the pledge down to the word assert, but simply gloss over the fact that the whole pledge was only about a small subset of the tens of thousands of patents that IBM has. Yes, I know one or two of the patents listed on the pledge were on the list of 150 or so sent by Mr Anzani. Somehow I doubt that if they were not there it would make the slightest bit of difference in your statements.
By the way, any comparison to Google in their approach to patents is meaningless anyway. Google is primarily in the advertising business. IBM is mostly in the intellectual property business.
You and Maynard are the worst voices OSS could have. You give more ammo to the anti-OSS people than anyone else could. You actually do think is perfectly OK for someone to simply rip-off an investment representing of billions of dollars by investing nothing yourself, and then claim that is 'competition'. If someone painted OSS as that you would be jumping all over them, but that is exactly what you are doing. You have zero credibility left.
Prove it.
The lock-in is not for me to prove but for antitrust regulators and/or judges to evaluate. All of us can express views here but it will be for others to look at both sides of the argument and weigh them. This here is a forum to exchange views and some information but not to "prove" in a legal sense.
The serious people that run these shops know how to do cost/benefit analysis... they still use IBM equipment because it best meets their needs.[...] SysPlex mainframe clusters, for microsecond sync should the business have an outage of a full data center - spending millions per year "extra" to avoid $Ms/minute outages.
[...] we would still need the MF to process, with at least 5 9's reliability, the zillions of transactions per day of other people's money.
I don't deny that IBM may have some high-end hardware. But customers should have choice and they should, depending on the specifics of their business and of a given application, also have the right to opt for emulation/virtualization on Intel-based servers. For a number of use cases that's definitely a viable option. Even if you give a hundred examples here of things that you believe require high-end hardware, there are enough examples to the contrary and if IBM believs that no one would want to use emulation/virtualization of mainframe legacy code on Intel-based servers, IBM could simply give its customers that choice because it wouldn't hurt them. But they know customers want it. I didn't claim that Intel-based emulation/virtualization could replace absolutely every high-end thing that a million-dollar (or multi-million-dollar) system can do. Still, I do defend the idea that customers should have this choice. I also believe they should have the kind of choice that NEON gives them: using lower-cost coprocessors to offload workloads.
Ah, so we're down to playing word games.
I would much prefer to look at all of this from a common sense point of view but if others bring up terminology issues, then so be it and let's talk about them in that case.
simply gloss over the fact that the whole pledge was only about a small subset of the tens of thousands of patents that IBM has.
I criticized the useless quantity of patents covered by the pledge on the very day when it was announced, five and a half years ago. Here's one example of many articles that quoted me that day. Later that same year, I wrote a whole article here on /. in which I explained that those pledges are useless.
Yes, I know one or two of the patents listed on the pledge were on the list of 150 or so sent by Mr Anzani. Somehow I doubt that if they were not there it would make the slightest bit of difference in your statements.
Those are two different aspects. The pledged patents are important from an IBM trustworthiness angle. From another angle, they're just a small part of the overall problem. I discussed this in a blog posting: "the pledged patents are important in one way and unimportant in another"
By the way, any comparison to Google in their approach to patents is meaningless anyway. Google is primarily in the advertising business. IBM is mostly in the intellectual property business.
I've seen a whole more innovation from Google over the last 12 years than from IBM during that same period. Patent experts actually consider Microsoft's innovation much more valuable than IBM's patent-everything-under-the-sun-approach, as I mention in this blog posting on IBM's patent portfolio and patent-related practices.
You actually do think is perfectly OK for someone to simply rip-off an investment representing of billions of dollars by investing nothing yourself, and then claim that is 'competition'.
So would you then also have claimed that Samba, the open source software that interacts with Windows Server, is also just a "rip-off" scheme against the billions of dollars Microsoft invested in its R&D? IBM supported that complaint against Microsoft in the EU. I, too, believe that the EU was right to intervene and I would have liked the EU to go even further and also deal with the software patent problem as a whole. I brought the Microsoft antitrust case up just recently in a presentation I made at LinuxTag, Europe's largest Linux and open source trade show and conference.
You really need to adjust your tin foil hat.
Try some facts for a change:
You're getting as bad with the FUD as O'Gara.
Why?
We now know what was in it for O'Gara. What's in it for you?
groklaw is a moderated site; as such, it is expected that comments that don't conform to the site's standards will be removed; most sites, including slashdot, will remove certain types of comments.
I didn't say that they can't remove comments. The question is what standards they apply. If those standards are reasonable and only unreasonable comments get removed, that's one thing. Should any evidence of perfectly resaonable comments being removed ever come up, it would add to concerns over the site's bias and validate some people's impression that it's a propaganda tool. That's why it's interesting to look at.
What's in it for you?
I don't do FUD. I have given a "mission statement" to TechRights who reported on one of Groklaw's recent attacks against me. Here's what I told TechRights: "Of course there are issues, including in the OIN context, where I personally have fears, uncertainty and doubts, and there are reasons for it. That does not make “FUD” my agenda. Instead, my agenda with the FOSS Patents blog is to provide information that (i) helps FOSS developers, distributors and users identify, avoid and deal with patent-related problems and (ii) puts a spotlight on ulterior motives and hypocrisy on the part of false friends of Free and Open Source Software. A long time ago I thought Groklaw shared the first goal. But by writing that IBM is free to sue the pants off TurboHercules, PJ has unfortunately shown that her agenda is different."
You claim that TurboHercules can be attacked with patents that Hercules (the open source project, and TurboHercules uses nothing else in terms of emulation software) allegedly infringes.
The patents have nothing to do with z/OS. Should they read on Hercules in conjunction with z/OS, then they would also also read on it in conjunction with z/Linux.
You should respect the open source principle of free distribution. Both the Open Source Definition and the Free Software Definition perfectly allow what TurboHercules does. Open source companies are an essential part of the open source ecosystem. What you say would mean that if someone asserted patents that allegedly read on Linux against Red Hat and Novell, this wouldn't mean to assert htem against Linux or open source because those are just simply companies. But it doesn't work that way. The Open Source Initiative even encourages commercialization of the very kind that TurboHercules does.
You still don't get it, do you? It has nothing to do with groklaw. Your actions wrt the Sun/Oracle deal made you into a joke. If you want to blame anyone for your current troll status, look in the mirror.
For most of us, you've joined the ranks of Darl McBride, Reb "Pretenderle" Enderle, Maureen O'Gara, and the other fakes. At this point, if there's ONE thing that you could do to benefit open source, it's to STFU! Right now you have less credibility wrt open source than Steve Balmer or Steve Jobs!
But let's look at just one of your statements to show how out-of-touch with the facts you really are:
You obviously didn't follow the Pystar debate. The principle there is the same - you can't go around violating licenses. PJ treated it the same way, so you're lying when you claim to be shocked. Or you're just willfully ignorant. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other ...
F/LOSS depends on that same rule, just as proprietary software does - you cannot violate the license. Otherwise, there's nothing to prevent a company from saying that the GPL is anti-trust, and that they should be able to force the authors of GPL software to issue licenses for proprietary purposes under a "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" basis.
Because that's where your whole argument will lead. It's been tried before - or weren't you paying attention in class when a certain peyote-head tried to argue that?
Look, your time has passed. Get over it and stop making such a big stink over the fact that people here think you stink. Otherwise, you'll become just another object of ridicule. (oops, my bad - too late).
Seriously - thinking you could troll slashdot? Home of the trolls? Not. Going. To. Happen. Especially not when most users think you owe everyone an apology for the crap you pulled wrt Sun/Oracle.
Hahahahahaha. ... hahahaahaha .....
Please, stop - you're killing me!
The whole Oracle/Sun thing was FUD.
You've claimed that IBM has attacked Hercules. They have not.
You've continually tried to confabulate "Hercules the project" with "Turbo Hercules the attempt to monetize Hercules".
PJ has consistently argued in favour of people being required to respect legal licenses, whether it;s from IBM, Apple (Apple vs Pystar), or the GPL. YOU are the one arguing otherwise - and you lie when you say that PJ has "suddenly" shown a different agenda.
Your call for IBM to be required to issue a license on a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis" is an indirect attack on the restrictions of the GPL. Compulsory licensing of GPL code for closed-source software can be supported using the same flawed "logic". We don't want to go down that road again!
You attack PJ for being consistent. Maybe you should try it yourself for a change. Read up on what she wrote about the Pystar litigation. It's the same argument she (and everyone else) uses to support the GPL - a license is a license, and if you don't want to abide by the license, don't use the code.
Don't want to abide by the z/OS license? Don't use the code. Same as Pystar - don't want to abide by Apple's license? Don't use OSX. Same as the GPL. Don't want to abide by the GPL? No linux for you!
Your "work" is undermining both F/LOSS and the GPL. Why should you be surprised when people, forced to pick sides, call you the troll you've become?
What you write about the license is just wrong because the patents IBM brought into play are patents that either read, if IBM's assertion was correct, also on the Hercules open source emulator (even if you just run z/Linux on it) or they don't do it ever. But here's something else you brought up:
Your actions wrt the Sun/Oracle deal made you into a joke. If you want to blame anyone for your current troll status, look in the mirror. Seriously - thinking you could troll slashdot? Home of the trolls? Not. Going. To. Happen. Especially not when most users think you owe everyone an apology for the crap you pulled wrt Sun/Oracle.
I don't "troll" slashdot. Before there were calls on Groklaw to come over and use mod points, several of my comments here (related to the same article) had a 4-5 and Insightful/Interesting rating. That shows independent, unbiased people considered them useful contributions to the discussion (whether or not they agreed with my views is another question, but they recognized the fact that I made civilized, facts-based, on-topic comments.
Now concerning Oracle/Sun, I quoted your two unspecified references above. What is there that you believe I owe anyone an apology for? If you're more specific, then I can clarify. In my opinion that's unrelated to IBM's wrongdoings anyway, but since you see a connection, could you please explain?
The whole Oracle/Sun thing was FUD.
I have just asked you on another branch of the discussion tree to clarify what problem you had with my work in that context.
You've claimed that IBM has attacked Hercules. They have not.
I've explained this in multiple comments here and you can also read the views of the maintainer of the Hercules open source project on his blog.
PJ has consistently argued in favour of people being required to respect legal licenses
That's always my position. In addition, there's antitrust law, which can be used against unreasonable conditions in license agreements imposed by dominant players. I assume you supported the EU's case against Microsoft, at least philosophically, didn't you? In that case this is the same legal concept.
Your call for IBM to be required to issue a license on a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis" is an indirect attack on the restrictions of the GPL. Compulsory licensing of GPL code for closed-source software can be supported using the same flawed "logic". We don't want to go down that road again!
If z/OS were available on GPL terms, the four freedoms would take care of the legitimate interests of customers and antitrust intervention wouldn't be needed.
Actually, both of you are making distinctions that are meaningless. The true goal was to get bought out by IBM, same as Platform Solutions Inc
Sound familiar?
The difference is that PSI had some proprietary stuff that IBM could use. Turbo Hercules doesn't so no buy-out.
from the USPO
From IBM: http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/24560.wss
As someone who believes in and uses open source software daily, I absolutely believe that proprietary software licenses MUST be respected. It's only on that basis that open source licenses can demand the same treatment.
If IBM wants to keep z/OS closed, that is their absolute right. Same as anyone who writes GPL software has the right to demand that users respect all the conditions. You can't pick and choose.
When someone hires me to write closed code - that is their right. I'll make the argument for opening it - or as much of it as possible - but in the end, it's their decision.
As for Microsoft,
If IBM is gouging, then eventually this will create a market of customers looking for alternatives. That will allow opportunists to say "here's a potential market that we can make $X off - let's invest in developing products for it." Compulsory competitor licenses prevent that from happening. They KILL innovation.
On software patents: Software should only be covered by copyright, not patent. Software, ultimately, is not a device, but instructions and data, same as a recipe book.
Gawd, you're such a lame troll - quoting yourself as an "authority" of the legal definition of the concept of "asserting a claim."
As others have said, show us a C & D letter. Show us a court filing.
IBM has not asserted their legal rights wrt patents in this case. Turbo Hercules asked them a question, IBM sent a response, identifying potential issues, as requested. That is far from asserting any legal patent rights.
You're a typical troll - plays word games, lies, mis-directs, tries to confuse the issues, lots of "preemptive" hand-waving ...
Where's the :rollseyes: emoticon when I need it. &_&
The one sad thing about all this is that Jay Maynard has gotten his head bitten off because people continue to confuse Hercules and Turbo Hercules - something that you are guilty of encouraging by not drawing a bright line between Hercules the open source project and Turbo Hercules.
From what I can see, Jay does not deserve any of this crap. Moreover, if it hadn't been for attempts to monetize Hercules by violating the zOS license, Jay might have been able to actually get himself a gig with IBM or one of their partners - this has probably poisoned that well, but I would certainly encourage both Jay and IBM to consider it - unless there are other considerations that I am unaware of.
Gawd, you're such a lame troll...
Well, if you get bored with him, that guy, apk, popped in for a visit..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Again? With the "Host file protects my 400hz computer?"
Be right over :-)
...well, having identified a new business opportunity, and being blessed with the brains to build software from scratch... or the ability to leverage F/OSS, you have a fantastic opportunity to go and emulate the OS too... Ka-Nock yourself out! Unless you still think you are entitled to have your own business w/ other people's hardware (commodity intel boxes), and other people's software (IBM in this case), for your (or your buddies) personal gain.......
Tell me, what exactly do you personally get out of all of this chit-chat, cuz, I sure can't believe that you are incompetent in your comprehension of Kindergarten level ethics....
SMB was invented as a way to interoperate between computers. And who invented it? Oh yeah, IBM. Microsoft took IBM's work and tried to make it Windows-only. It is hardly suprising that IBM opposed that. Now, are you going to try and claim that it was actually Hercules (or some other OSS project) that invented the z Architecture, and IBM then hijacked that?
Yep, Groklaw apparently have a habit of blocking commenters whose opinions disagree with the site's viewpoints. This has a few interesting aspects. Firstly, [...] Secondly, [...] Thirdly, [...].
Thank you for this information. I have heard this from several independdent sources, some of which have documented it with screenshots and sent them to me. I would like to ask you to also send me your information and material. I can't promise that I will publish it, and if I do so, I can't promise when, but there is a possibility that I will expose Groklaw for the propaganda tool that it is.
I received some stuff in reply to another call on the community, on this page of my blog. You can find an email address there that I don't check extremely frequently, but I do read everything that gets sent there.
There are ever more indications that Groklaw indeed blocks people simply for disagreement, without justification under a resaonable standard such as promotion of commercial websites, offensive or off-topic content. That's what sets them apart from how unbiased websites operate and raises serious questions even concerning Groklaw's purpose. It certainly doesn't detract from concerns some others have previously had about Groklaw.
Again, you can find a contact email address here.
Please get your facts at least a little straight.
You're in dire need of that, tomhudson.
Again, nothing nefarious. This is an anti-spam provision. Spammer posts some spam, you delete it, but because it's tied to an IP, when they go to check up on their spam, it's "still there" so they don't re-post over and over and over. Then, because their spam apparently is bringing 0 results, they go elsewhere.
The material I have received from multiple sources independently of each other indicates that they don't block "spammers" but simply people they disagree with.
I am increasingly inclined to expose them for what they are, and to shed some light on other issues concerning them than just this one. This behavior is consistent with an overall approach that instead of digging for truth attempts to suppress the truth in a wide variety of ways.
> Anyone can implement this with with any cms with a bit of work. It doesn't suddenly make it nefarious - it lowers the amount of repeat spamming and astroturfing, because when astroturfers realize that nobody is getting their message, they go elsewhere.
I'm sure they can, but you have a poor idea of what PJ actually censors. I have a much better idea, because I have quite a few examples.
Some things she has actually censored:
* PDF to text of the four letters between TH & IBM.
* Pointing out that Red Hat is a CCIA member.
* Talking about the parol evidence rule, specifically comparing what she said about it in the past to how she treats it nowadays (e.g. only a lying weasel like SCO would give out inadmissible parol evidence to what I'd paraphrase as "here's some parol evidence; but don't ask too many questions, I don't have time to explain").
There were quite a few other things, too. I can give you links if you want, but they'll all be dead pages for you. I hope you'll agree that this isn't "KKK manifesto" type material?
Incidentally, there *is* one troll post she hasn't censored. Some idiot made a rambling, off-topic post about drugs or something. It has been reported, but never got cleaned up. If *that* was what she censored, I wouldn't care.
But when she censors people who try to post relevant facts that conflict with her theories? Well, then I start to question her commitment to bringing us the whole truth. And that IS part of Groklaw's mission, right? To lay out ALL the facts and let us decide, or as she put it, "applying open-source principles to research to the extent that they apply"
I don't think she can do that while censoring the posts she has censored.
I can give you text for those entries, BTW. Her vanishing scheme has a flaw, but I can't use it too often.
Not only is Google Book Search very blatant copyright infringement, but so is offering to show users the entire cached page in addition to a "fair-use-sized" snippet and a link to the original source for the rest of it.
The cached page should only be used internally to build the search indexes - never exposed to the public.