On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:28:22 -0000, Phil Payne wrote: >PSI has also filed its anti-trust suit in the EU. Dearly beloved DG IV is a >little different >from the New York District Court - it has teeth that it's not afraid to use. > >http://ww.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html > >Has anyone from the Hercules team read IBM's rather stunning admission (on the >above page - >paragraph 176) that there is a "confidential version" of the PoP? Their >words, not mine. > Or, perhaps,
http://www.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html ... wherein I see: 176. The Technical Information that IBM disclosed to Amdahl under the TIDA and TILA generally was derived from a confidential version of the PoP and from other confidential architecture documents. Confidential aspects of IBM's architecture disclosed to Amdahl are still maintained today in a confidential version of the PoP and in other confidential documents. PSI admits that the technical information disclosed to Amdahl may have initially been derived from a version of the PoP that was different from the public version of the PoP. PSI denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 176. Ummm. IANAL. Clearly. It appears that PSI is denying the existence of certain confidential documents mentioned in the "remaining allegations". To do so with confidence, PSI must have good industrial espionage indeed. Or is this a legal tactic to compel IBM to present evidence of the existence of the putative confidential documents, which evidence might have collateral benefit to PSI? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
