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."
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).