There is no need to speculate on the 1956 Consent Decree - its status and both parties' opinions of it are documented in the filings. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.
See http://www.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html and use your browser's search to find 'Consent Decree'. Note especially the extract PSI quotes at 50: "If, after the Decree terminates, IBM engages in any activity that would violate the antitrust laws, it would be immediately liable to suit." I was surprised to find these still online: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E7D81E3AF937A25755C0A962958260 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE6DC143BF93BA25752C0A963958260 This is turning into a very complex issue, because PSI claims IBM did and IBM claims it didn't, but even if it had it would be protected by alleged transgressions on PSI's part. Some people are saying the latter protection might be a defense against some antitrust activity but not in every case. And then in the EU there seems to be no such defense at all, but also no automatic right to reimpose the 1984 Undertaking.. One thing no one seems to have suggested yet, and I'm not sure how useful it will prove: Some agencies (governments, defence departments, etc.) require vendors to supply FULL documentationn on any products delivered. IMO that would include the trade secret stuff. Someone needs to find a jurisdiction where this rule is completely enforced _and_ where there's a strong local Freedom of Information Act. Than ask for a copy. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
