<snip>
Come on folks - CA like any company has an obligation to protect its
assets. I don't know if their suit is valid or not and will not comment
on
the merits of the suit. However CA would be doing a disservice to its
share holders if they did not pursue any/all actions to protect this
intellectual property - that is anything short of the unethical. This
does
not in anyway reflect upon their customer relations as they (unlike
some)
are not filing suit against the customers of the software in question.
</snip>
What are "out of work" developers supposed to do? Starve?
Having been through a CA acquisition in a prior life, the majority of
the
existing staff are let go with only a few "key" individuals retained.
The
ones that are let go will of course take the job that is offered. At
*any* job, prior experience is brought to the table and used.
CA is suing because someone *might* have re-coded an interface for
Rocket,
initially coded while in the employ of CA. This is (IMO) perfectly legal
as long as code listings were not taken. i.e. I've done this before and
I know
how to do this. I'll just write the code again!
Pretty flimsy basis for putting another 200 or so mainframers out of
work!
Ref: Apple vs Microsoft
SCO vs. IBM
Novell vs. "Linux"
The courts will decide!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
