On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 17:22:39 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:18:41 -0800, Guy Gardoit wrote: > >>Good for IBM - goodbye Neon, sleep tight. >> >I'm not sure why the jubilation. Sure, Neon is in business >to make money. They're trying to do so by offering IBM's >customers a way to save money. Whether it's legal or not >is for the courts to decide; they haven't rendered that >decision yet. Until then, in the interest of their pocketbooks, >pragmatic customers should be rooting for Neon. > >>On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Ed Gould wrote: >> >>> http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/01/29/ibm_countersues_neon/ > I am rooting for Neon, but from what I've read, their software invokes the specialty engines for tasks that are not valid for those engines. I think IBM was vague about qualifying workloads when they introduced them, but they have since clarified much. I believe the IBM agreements everyone is bound by states if you run an unqualified workload on those engines, they can charge you for the entire engine at GP prices. That's a pretty pricey gamble. The courts may change that or maybe IBM will buy them out and share some of their capabilities with us. Who knows.... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
