- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
IBM breaks OSS patent promise, targets mainframe emulator
|
|
|
Comments (68)
Like the good old days
44 earlier comments in the full thread.
Argh!, the punctuation is driving me batty!.
Argh!, the punctuation is driving me batty!.
My, you allow the smallest things to get to you, please tell more about what you find wrong. Let me add something here, some time ago a study was done and found that the position of the letters of words can be changed, just allowing the first and last to remain in posistion, it was found that most people reading a paragraph with such words contained within read the words anyway. Without any punctuation marks within a paragraph, if someone knows how to read can read the paragraph. Believe me I know these things to be true because it works here. So, if you are having problems, they just may come from your over focus on punctuation and lack of natural reading skill.
My, you allow the smallest things to get to you, please tell more about what you find wrong. Let me add something here, some time ago a study was done and found that the position of the letters of words can be changed, just allowing the first and last to remain in posistion, it was found that most people reading a paragraph with such words contained within read the words anyway. Without any punctuation marks within a paragraph, if someone knows how to read can read the paragraph. Believe me I know these things to be true because it works here. So, if you are having problems, they just may come from your over focus on punctuation and lack of natural reading skill.
Yeah, you should see how I get when people talk while I am watching a movie.
Strongbad would be proud of me!
Strongbad would be proud of me!
Jump to conclusions much? I'm an IBM stockholder.
I'm not one to argue with Einstein, but my poor little mind tells me that a guess is not a conclusion.
guess:: To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
Conclusion:: The close or last part; the end or finish.
Gotta go now.
I'm not one to argue with Einstein, but my poor little mind tells me that a guess is not a conclusion.
guess:: To predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information.
Conclusion:: The close or last part; the end or finish.
Gotta go now.
Wow, every post robbon makes proves more and more what a troll he/she/it is.
Quoting:Gotta go now.Seriously this time? Or is it as much a lie this time as it was before?
> The fact is, if you wish people to stay away from insults, then don't start with them,
I wasn't going to waste more time on this, but...
Fights don't start when the other guy hits you back. You posted a bunch of nonsense criticism of FOSS. I responded to you.
I wasn't going to waste more time on this, but...
Fights don't start when the other guy hits you back. You posted a bunch of nonsense criticism of FOSS. I responded to you.
> ...but my poor little mind,,,,
You said it, not me.
> ... tells me that a guess is not a conclusion.
Then why post it (twice yet) as if it is.
> Gotta go now.
And, I repeat yet again: Promises, promises.
> Wow, every post robbon makes proves more and more what a troll he/she/it is.
Yeah, he's pretty much made that obvious, hasn't he.
It's a shame. IBM probably has some valid points in this matter (TurboHercules' interpretation of the disaster recovery section of the license is questionable at best), but with advocates like this, no one will ever know what they are.
You said it, not me.
> ... tells me that a guess is not a conclusion.
Then why post it (twice yet) as if it is.
> Gotta go now.
And, I repeat yet again: Promises, promises.
> Wow, every post robbon makes proves more and more what a troll he/she/it is.
Yeah, he's pretty much made that obvious, hasn't he.
It's a shame. IBM probably has some valid points in this matter (TurboHercules' interpretation of the disaster recovery section of the license is questionable at best), but with advocates like this, no one will ever know what they are.
jdixon:
Make up your mind about what you think or believe rather then this cut & paste of the information to just use it to create something, anything to say so to keep your pals here happy with you. "IBM probably has some valid points" ? really ? and that is regardless per your statement "However, if I were an open source developer, I'd now regard their pledge as almost worthless, since I couldn't know what other patents they might choose to sue me over.".
So let me see, a "pledge as almost worthless" - "IBM probably has some valid points" with IBM as the pledge maker ? wow oh wow. *** Don't fear, you will find some way out of it.
bigg: No fight to hit back for even if that is the way you deal with what I was saying about some in FOSS.
Wow how wild is it here, I go off for a short time and SLAM !.
Make up your mind about what you think or believe rather then this cut & paste of the information to just use it to create something, anything to say so to keep your pals here happy with you. "IBM probably has some valid points" ? really ? and that is regardless per your statement "However, if I were an open source developer, I'd now regard their pledge as almost worthless, since I couldn't know what other patents they might choose to sue me over.".
So let me see, a "pledge as almost worthless" - "IBM probably has some valid points" with IBM as the pledge maker ? wow oh wow. *** Don't fear, you will find some way out of it.
bigg: No fight to hit back for even if that is the way you deal with what I was saying about some in FOSS.
Wow how wild is it here, I go off for a short time and SLAM !.
tuxchick -
You need to go back to law school and study up on monopolies. Market share is not sufficient to find the presence of an illegal monopoly. The questions of definition and substitution come into play.
Is the monopoly one of IBM-like mainframes or a matter of large-scale enterprise-class servers? Defined the second way, IBM has nothing close to a monopoly. Unix and Windows servers have been taking market from mainframes for years.
You need to go back to law school and study up on monopolies. Market share is not sufficient to find the presence of an illegal monopoly. The questions of definition and substitution come into play.
Is the monopoly one of IBM-like mainframes or a matter of large-scale enterprise-class servers? Defined the second way, IBM has nothing close to a monopoly. Unix and Windows servers have been taking market from mainframes for years.
> "pledge as almost worthless" ... "IBM probably has some valid points"
And these two are in contradiction exactly how? Not that I expect a coherent answer, mind you.
And these two are in contradiction exactly how? Not that I expect a coherent answer, mind you.
dino, good point, I was thinking only of mainframes. I wasn't calling them an illegal monopoly, just a monopoly.
jdixon:
Read from the top: There is a clue to what I was talking about ! "Make up your mind about what you think or believe"
I said nothing about a damn contradiction !. You and your pet word coherent thinking said too different things, Do you think there is a coherent contradiction exactly and having second thoughts about it ?. I see you said the first because that sound right at the time, and the second was said because you wished to get at me NOT thinking how to tie the two statements together.
Saying the same entity on one hand has a promise that you don't trust ?, then say the entity may have valid point(s) about a promise that you have stated they broke ?. " There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. "
"spirit of the promise", what is the promise without the "spirit" ? ...If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak.
Come on, get out of it and please ditch the coherent defence that has been over used all over as a basis for most everything you have said. Complex ?
Read from the top: There is a clue to what I was talking about ! "Make up your mind about what you think or believe"
I said nothing about a damn contradiction !. You and your pet word coherent thinking said too different things, Do you think there is a coherent contradiction exactly and having second thoughts about it ?. I see you said the first because that sound right at the time, and the second was said because you wished to get at me NOT thinking how to tie the two statements together.
Saying the same entity on one hand has a promise that you don't trust ?, then say the entity may have valid point(s) about a promise that you have stated they broke ?. " There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. "
"spirit of the promise", what is the promise without the "spirit" ? ...If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak.
Come on, get out of it and please ditch the coherent defence that has been over used all over as a basis for most everything you have said. Complex ?
Sure enough, I was hoping for the impossible.
Oh but gus3, your naive hopefulness is so refreshing!
:)
:)
> ...You and your pet word coherent thinking said too different things,
Two different things? You think so. Well, that makes one of us.
> Saying the same entity on one hand has a promise that you don't trust ?
Yep.
> ... then say the entity may have valid point(s) about a promise that you have stated they broke ?.
I said "I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise". The I think makes it an opinion, not a fact. And, unlike you, I try to always keep in mind that I can be wrong. After all, I haven't heard IBM's side of the story yet.
> ...what is the promise without the "spirit" ?
Almost worthless, as I already noted. But again, that's a personal evaluation, not a fact.
> If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess.
It's not. And "I wish for you to cover this mess" makes no sense in this context. But then you seem to have that problem a lot.
> Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak.
I haven't made any mistake of the type you seem to think. My opinions may be proven wrong, but that's not the same thing. Not that I expect you to understand the difference.
> ...and please ditch the coherent defence that has been over used all over as a basis for most everything you have said.
No.
> I was hoping for the impossible.
Like I said, gus3: Promises, promises.
Two different things? You think so. Well, that makes one of us.
> Saying the same entity on one hand has a promise that you don't trust ?
Yep.
> ... then say the entity may have valid point(s) about a promise that you have stated they broke ?.
I said "I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise". The I think makes it an opinion, not a fact. And, unlike you, I try to always keep in mind that I can be wrong. After all, I haven't heard IBM's side of the story yet.
> ...what is the promise without the "spirit" ?
Almost worthless, as I already noted. But again, that's a personal evaluation, not a fact.
> If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess.
It's not. And "I wish for you to cover this mess" makes no sense in this context. But then you seem to have that problem a lot.
> Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak.
I haven't made any mistake of the type you seem to think. My opinions may be proven wrong, but that's not the same thing. Not that I expect you to understand the difference.
> ...and please ditch the coherent defence that has been over used all over as a basis for most everything you have said.
No.
> I was hoping for the impossible.
Like I said, gus3: Promises, promises.
Other then your cute twist on what I said, good job !.
jdixon::
FYI: this is how it is stated above !.
You: " There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. "
Me: "spirit of the promise", what is the promise without the "spirit" ? ...If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak.
"I haven't made any mistake of the type you seem to think. My opinions may be proven wrong, but that's not the same thing. Not that I expect you to understand the difference."
Oh I understand the difference, that someone's opinions just get cleared and all other are nailed. Your mistake was that you trash IBM on one hand, then, without a thought, say IBM may have valid points when btw, talking about the same thing the promise and the issue around it!. I asked you to make up your mind, and you jumped when you were thinking I was talking contradiction. Now that was funny even over a forum and I'm happy you found a way out ...good job.
jdixon::
FYI: this is how it is stated above !.
You: " There is some question as to whether IBM has broken the letter of their promise not to sue FOSS developers. I don't think there's too much question that they've broken the spirit of the promise. "
Me: "spirit of the promise", what is the promise without the "spirit" ? ...If that is not two different things I wish for you to cover this mess. Sorry but you can't have all your way even when you have made a mistake that makes your claim to coherent weak.
"I haven't made any mistake of the type you seem to think. My opinions may be proven wrong, but that's not the same thing. Not that I expect you to understand the difference."
Oh I understand the difference, that someone's opinions just get cleared and all other are nailed. Your mistake was that you trash IBM on one hand, then, without a thought, say IBM may have valid points when btw, talking about the same thing the promise and the issue around it!. I asked you to make up your mind, and you jumped when you were thinking I was talking contradiction. Now that was funny even over a forum and I'm happy you found a way out ...good job.
ignoring the fact that even in the promise they withheld the right to defend themselves.
> Your mistake was that you trash IBM on one hand, then, without a thought, say IBM may have valid points when btw, talking about the same thing the promise and the issue around it!.
At no point in this discussion have I "trashed" IBM. But like I said, you have that problem a lot.
What I have said is that if I were an open source developer, I would now consider their promise not to sue to be worthless. You may consider that "trashing: IBM. I consider it viewing them as just another corporation, like any other.
At no point in this discussion have I "trashed" IBM. But like I said, you have that problem a lot.
What I have said is that if I were an open source developer, I would now consider their promise not to sue to be worthless. You may consider that "trashing: IBM. I consider it viewing them as just another corporation, like any other.
> ignoring the fact that even in the promise they withheld the right to defend themselves.
They withheld both the right to defend themselves and the right to revoke the promise for anyone who sued any open source software over patents or intellectual property. In other words, it was aimed at other companies such as Microsoft as much as at developers. I always considered that the more significant portion of the promise.
They withheld both the right to defend themselves and the right to revoke the promise for anyone who sued any open source software over patents or intellectual property. In other words, it was aimed at other companies such as Microsoft as much as at developers. I always considered that the more significant portion of the promise.
Typical-money drives the train, not customer satisfaction.
It looks like IBM decided that Open Source Software, the wave of the future, was not the way to go because, like Microsoft, once again drives the train. It appears to me that Microsoft's influence has bled over to IBM. Could there be a kickback from Microsoft to IBM? It makes one wonder.
When will companies realize that it is better to sell a bigger volume of consumer goods and services to satisfied customers and also save them money than allow outside companies to influence their business practices and sell a smaller volume of consumer goods and services at a higher price to dissatisfied customers. The latter is why so many companies are failing in this poor economy.
Since reading this story I have decided that there will never be an IBM/Lenovo product in my home or office (I am a voluntary Chapter Service Officer with the Disabled American Veterans.)
Corporate greed and influence is what ruined this economy. I wish only bad things for companies such as IBM/Lenovo and Microsoft for continuing their predatory practices.
> It appears to me that Microsoft's influence has bled over to IBM.
Microsoft learned everything they know about monopoly behavior and FUD from IBM. IBM is, from memory, the largest patent holder in the world. This is nothing new for them.
> Corporate greed and influence is what ruined this economy.
Government mis-regulation and lack of oversight also played a significant role. There's plenty of blame to go around.
Microsoft learned everything they know about monopoly behavior and FUD from IBM. IBM is, from memory, the largest patent holder in the world. This is nothing new for them.
> Corporate greed and influence is what ruined this economy.
Government mis-regulation and lack of oversight also played a significant role. There's plenty of blame to go around.
> Corporate greed and influence is what ruined this economy.
It's what was influenced that did the ruin. Buying favors from the great Granter of Monopolies has always been the "easy" way.
The term FUD was originally coined to describe IBM methods used for distracting people from competing products.
When IBM was sued for monopoly abuse, they kept the case going for so long that the government gave up the case as no longer relevant because of the rise of Amdahl, et. at.
Microsoft is a poor also-ran, which had to buy off the politicians. Putzes! Amateurs!
At one time, IBM made more microchips than any other company in the world. But they didn't sell chips, they were used internally. Their patents cover even the ways that have compressed how magnetic fields can be read and written that allow for gigabyte diskdrives that aren't measured in tons.
IBM has done two very Good Things(tm): The IBM PC was, except for the BIOS, entirely an open architecture. Any video card, any memory expansion, any IO or network card made anywhere in the world, would just plug in and work (in theory anyway).
This, just like the Linux "open" software later, crushed the price over the course of a few years as manufacturers ramped up.
IBM tried to put the genie back in the bottle with MicroChannel architecture in their PS/2, that fell flat on its face.
And around 2000, IBM was in serious danger of going under. The cheap server was obviously going to be more flexible, and cheaper, than their million dollar mainframes and million dollar support contracts. IBM caught the Linux idea and ran with it, very much re-making their business to support smaller installations with commodity hardware running commodity software, along with million dollar support contracts.
Gotta make a profit somewhere, ne?
IBMs contributions to Linux SMP and memory scaling are why Microsoft's tool SCO brought their copyright suit against IBM. Now that SCO has been ruled to now own those copyrights, I wonder when this suit is going to be dropped.
Unfortunately, IBM remains a public company, driven to "maximize shareholder value", hiring Harvard MBAs and lawyers, so they have every incentive to work the system to their own benefit and the talent to, at least, try.
It looks like they might be "trying" to see what works.
The patent promise was made by a company, not an individual. Who gets held to that promise?
It's what was influenced that did the ruin. Buying favors from the great Granter of Monopolies has always been the "easy" way.
The term FUD was originally coined to describe IBM methods used for distracting people from competing products.
When IBM was sued for monopoly abuse, they kept the case going for so long that the government gave up the case as no longer relevant because of the rise of Amdahl, et. at.
Microsoft is a poor also-ran, which had to buy off the politicians. Putzes! Amateurs!
At one time, IBM made more microchips than any other company in the world. But they didn't sell chips, they were used internally. Their patents cover even the ways that have compressed how magnetic fields can be read and written that allow for gigabyte diskdrives that aren't measured in tons.
IBM has done two very Good Things(tm): The IBM PC was, except for the BIOS, entirely an open architecture. Any video card, any memory expansion, any IO or network card made anywhere in the world, would just plug in and work (in theory anyway).
This, just like the Linux "open" software later, crushed the price over the course of a few years as manufacturers ramped up.
IBM tried to put the genie back in the bottle with MicroChannel architecture in their PS/2, that fell flat on its face.
And around 2000, IBM was in serious danger of going under. The cheap server was obviously going to be more flexible, and cheaper, than their million dollar mainframes and million dollar support contracts. IBM caught the Linux idea and ran with it, very much re-making their business to support smaller installations with commodity hardware running commodity software, along with million dollar support contracts.
Gotta make a profit somewhere, ne?
IBMs contributions to Linux SMP and memory scaling are why Microsoft's tool SCO brought their copyright suit against IBM. Now that SCO has been ruled to now own those copyrights, I wonder when this suit is going to be dropped.
Unfortunately, IBM remains a public company, driven to "maximize shareholder value", hiring Harvard MBAs and lawyers, so they have every incentive to work the system to their own benefit and the talent to, at least, try.
It looks like they might be "trying" to see what works.
The patent promise was made by a company, not an individual. Who gets held to that promise?
Can someone explain to me about the folks who are accusing IBM of breaking its promises to the linux/oss community?
At first blush, it seems that an irrational hatred of big blue has got the facts get twisted in their own mind into an entirely unexpected (to me) shape.
Can one of the IBM bashers explain to me, what does a microsoft-funded business competitor to IBM have to do with the linux/foss community?
How does IBMs refusal to give away the store to this microsoft-funded business competitor affect the linux/oss community in any way whatsoever?
Do the IBM bashers somehow interpret IBM's promise not to sue the linux/foss community over these patents as a promise that they will never exercise their legal rights against anybody, ever again?
What's the thinking? Inquiring minds want to know!
At first blush, it seems that an irrational hatred of big blue has got the facts get twisted in their own mind into an entirely unexpected (to me) shape.
Can one of the IBM bashers explain to me, what does a microsoft-funded business competitor to IBM have to do with the linux/foss community?
How does IBMs refusal to give away the store to this microsoft-funded business competitor affect the linux/oss community in any way whatsoever?
Do the IBM bashers somehow interpret IBM's promise not to sue the linux/foss community over these patents as a promise that they will never exercise their legal rights against anybody, ever again?
What's the thinking? Inquiring minds want to know!
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Like I said earlier in this very thread:
Jump to conclusions much? I'm an IBM stockholder.
> ... keep the picki-sh** to yourself along with your pointless question !
I didn't ask any questions in the particular post you're responding to.
> Is it true then, that anyone that comes here and does not agree has nothing important to do ?.
I never accused you of not having anything important to do.
> ...you don't understand right !.
I'd say you're the one who doesn't understand.