-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Howard Brazee Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 12:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Fwd: Is There Such a Thing as a Mainframe Monopoly?
On 19 Oct 2009 13:47:18 -0700, [email protected] (Thompson, Steve) wrote: >Please tell me what you consider to be malicious actions. > >Would suing a company and then buying them out to keep from losing the >case meet your definition? Not mine. You can't buy a company that doesn't accept your bid. <SNIP> If the one party makes the lawsuit quite expensive for the other to defend against, and then makes an offer that will cover *all* the costs, what is the effect? BTW - Apparently this is what happened between M/S and Lindows. M/S filed complaints in more than one country. However a certain US Fed judge flatly stated that M/S could not perfect their trademark on Windows. So, M/S decided to offer Lindows enough money to buy their trademark and cover all their expenses, because it would be GREATLY to their benefit to not have a court issue a formal ruling that Windows can't be trademarked. So Lindows changed their name to LinSpire and gave up the Lindows trademark & name to M/S. To continue back with IBM, the argument was raised that IBM was charging for the use of their patents in both the software and hardware charges -- something that could have caused IBM's patents to be declared NULL had the case continued (nice how those motions for summary work). So even if they won the suit itself (right to control their patents), they would have lost their patents. <SNIP> >Would refusing to license your software on machines other than what you >produce go toward malicious actions? No. It's also not malicious to have an exclusive contract with one vendor (iPhone/AT&T) <snip> Even though, you stated on your official web site that you would license your patents... and then after the lawsuit was filed, you changed your verbiage to state that you will not? That is not what AT&T did, it is what IBM did. This takes us back to the abuse of patent... <SNIP> >Would refusing to license your software for running on a competitor's >machine, when just a few months earlier you were doing that? That's closer. <SNIPPAGE> And that is where the prior point was, and the one before that. IBM changed the rules AFTER they went to court. And some might argue, have violated patent laws (I'm not an attorney, I just have to deal with them). So, one last thing that has not been discussed in this thread to this point (that I've read at least: Consent Degrees and the possible violation of same (new administration may be the one to argue this one, as opposed to a Republican based administration - this is a fact of life, certain lawsuits will be quashed under one administration and vigorously pursued under another). If IBM were found to be violating these... Regards, Steve Thompson -- The opinions expressed by this poster may not be the same as those of poster's employer -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
