- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
IBM’s Open Source Patent Pledge
|
|
|
Comments (43)
23 earlier comments in the full thread.
So who here would still be against IBM if they nixed the 2 patents under the agreement and sued TH for the 104 patents they broke?
How many of the 104 are patents on software, which for good reasons shouldn't be patentable?
> So who here would still be against IBM if they nixed the 2 patents under the agreement and sued TH for the 104 patents they broke?
Define against IBM. :) As noted in the other thread, I'm an IBM stockholder. I'm also an FOSS user.
IBM would be within their rights in that case. I wouldn't like it any better than I like any other software patent claim. Software patents need to be take out behind the barn and shot.
Except for IBM willingness to so quickly claim software patent violations, these are normal business negotiating tactics are no real concern to FOSS. As I said earlier, that willingness is do so (and the fact that the two patents were included in the letter) is troubling.
Define against IBM. :) As noted in the other thread, I'm an IBM stockholder. I'm also an FOSS user.
IBM would be within their rights in that case. I wouldn't like it any better than I like any other software patent claim. Software patents need to be take out behind the barn and shot.
Except for IBM willingness to so quickly claim software patent violations, these are normal business negotiating tactics are no real concern to FOSS. As I said earlier, that willingness is do so (and the fact that the two patents were included in the letter) is troubling.
so quick? this has been a few years in the cooking.
Why don't we bring Apple and OSX into this discussion? After all they do the same bundling and also refuse to let others use their OS on any computer except their own.
And Apple has ALREADY take people to court over this. Sometimes I don't think having a monopoly on something because everyone else dropped out of the market should make what a company does any worse than what a company without a monopoly does.
You could I suppose even argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers.
And Apple has ALREADY take people to court over this. Sometimes I don't think having a monopoly on something because everyone else dropped out of the market should make what a company does any worse than what a company without a monopoly does.
You could I suppose even argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers.
>You could I suppose even argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers.
Yup. That would be very much the same idea these days.
Thirty years ago? Not so much.
There was a time when IBM had a monopoly on large-scale enterprise computing, but monopolies have shelf lives, and that one has long since expired.
Yup. That would be very much the same idea these days.
Thirty years ago? Not so much.
There was a time when IBM had a monopoly on large-scale enterprise computing, but monopolies have shelf lives, and that one has long since expired.
Quoting:You could I suppose even argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers.
Which is exactly what Pystar claimed. I'm not sure that this was resolved in court, but IIRC they lost this argument. I'm pretty sure Groklaw knows more.
Quoting:You could I suppose even argue that Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers.Microsoft may have a[n illegal] monopoly on Windows systems, but there is an alternate implementation of the Windows API's.
Windows isn't exactly locked to a particular hardware system the way both IBM mainframe and Apple computers are. Therefore I feel the Microsoft monopoly is actually the far more dangerous entity. Both IBM and Apple only monopolize their own hardware/software configuration.
Why doesn't TurboHercules just write their own software and OS to go along with their emulator. They have the right to do that. Then they can try to complete fairly for mainframe sales.
Instead they feel someone else (IBM) should be forced to supply a competitor with that software so they can be competed against. I wouldn't be in any hurry to do this if it was my business model rather than IBM's.
Why doesn't TurboHercules just write their own software and OS to go along with their emulator. They have the right to do that. Then they can try to complete fairly for mainframe sales.
Instead they feel someone else (IBM) should be forced to supply a competitor with that software so they can be competed against. I wouldn't be in any hurry to do this if it was my business model rather than IBM's.
Sander --
In a way, most manufacturers have a monopoly on their own products. The question is what that monopoly means in terms of the market.
For example, is the market a market for Apple computers or a market for computers, of which Apple is one part?
The Psystar case is not closed. Apple was awarded summary judgment (the facts in the pleadings were sufficient to decide the case), but Psystar has appealed the ruling. Tune in later, but it's not looking good for the former clone maker.
In a way, most manufacturers have a monopoly on their own products. The question is what that monopoly means in terms of the market.
For example, is the market a market for Apple computers or a market for computers, of which Apple is one part?
The Psystar case is not closed. Apple was awarded summary judgment (the facts in the pleadings were sufficient to decide the case), but Psystar has appealed the ruling. Tune in later, but it's not looking good for the former clone maker.
cabreh --
Probably because the only reason anybody cares about the emulator is to run the existing software. If you're going to move to something new, why emulate?
Probably because the only reason anybody cares about the emulator is to run the existing software. If you're going to move to something new, why emulate?
@dinotrac
So, putting together your responses to Sander and myself, we should come up with IBM is only monopolizing their own mainframe systems and rather than build an emulator for that TurboHercules should just build their own mainframe and try to compete that way. Which makes sense to me.
Just like Dell is competing with Apple. Rather than expecting IBM to supply them to be the competition.
I have no particular association with, nor real love of IBM, but then TurboHercules doesn't endear me to themselves either.
So, putting together your responses to Sander and myself, we should come up with IBM is only monopolizing their own mainframe systems and rather than build an emulator for that TurboHercules should just build their own mainframe and try to compete that way. Which makes sense to me.
Just like Dell is competing with Apple. Rather than expecting IBM to supply them to be the competition.
I have no particular association with, nor real love of IBM, but then TurboHercules doesn't endear me to themselves either.
cabreh -
Almost. If you look around big corporations, you will find that the mainframes have a lot of competition from non-mainframe servers, both Unix and Windows.
Almost. If you look around big corporations, you will find that the mainframes have a lot of competition from non-mainframe servers, both Unix and Windows.
So it seems the best solution would be for TurboHercules to create an open work alike to the Mainframe OS, that will run on anything, kind of like Linux is to Unix, then they can use the emulator to help port existing systems over.
boomnoomcars --
That's actually one of the roles of Linux for the mainframe. Put up a Linux LPAR, and start integrating/migrating/etc
That's actually one of the roles of Linux for the mainframe. Put up a Linux LPAR, and start integrating/migrating/etc
> So it seems the best solution would be for TurboHercules to create an open work alike to the Mainframe O
While that sounds like a good idea, I'm fairly certain that if they did that, IBM would find even more patents to throw at them. :(
While that sounds like a good idea, I'm fairly certain that if they did that, IBM would find even more patents to throw at them. :(
Quoting:So it seems the best solution would be for TurboHercules to create an open work alike to the Mainframe OS
You should read the Groklaw article again. Your solution doesn't work at all. IBM Mainframe apps are license-locked to IBM OS and hardware. It's not quite like Apple as other posters make it out to be. It would be more like iTunes only being allowed to run on MacOSX (which is only allowed to run on Apple hardware). That would be more like it.
> It would be more like iTunes only being allowed to run on MacOSX (which is only allowed to run on Apple hardware).
I think a better example is the iPhone. My understanding is that Apple now only allows apps in the App Store that were developed using Apple's tools. That guarantees that you can only run those apps on the iPhone.
I think a better example is the iPhone. My understanding is that Apple now only allows apps in the App Store that were developed using Apple's tools. That guarantees that you can only run those apps on the iPhone.
If that is true about the iPhone apps, then you're mostly right. I don't think that Apple (yet) forbids to run software developed using the iPhone SDK on anything but iPhones. It may be practically hard to create software with the SDK and run it on other platforms, but not legally forbidden. Yet...
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
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...