On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 11:39:16 -0600, Dave Kopischke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 09:10:05 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: > >> >>I really wish that the USERS (that's us) were able to file an amicus curiae >brief >>so that OUR wishes are heard and rights protected. > >I'd like to read more about what "rights" we think we have in this. It seems >pretty clear-cut to me. IBM owns this stuff and they're trying to protect it. >The patent laws are the patent laws. Retroactively applying some socialistic >philosphy to the issue does not change IBM's rights nor the law. > >While I agree with many of the opinions concerning what should happen and >have posted my opinion regarding IBM's seemingly short-sighted strategy, I >cannot and will not support a movement to ignore the law and deny anyone's >right to protect their property. > >Without any political nor philosophical preaching, what specific "rights" do we >have in this matter ???? > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 Well, for example, the freedom to choose what platform we use for development purposes. In effect, IBM is taking that option away from existing users, and they're also limiting a market for potential users. Further, as users I think we could make the argument that IBM's actions are anti-competitive both to the principals of the case as well as to small development shops and educational facilities. The fact that this cuts IBM's own throat by further reducing the numbers of mainframe-ready developers, technicians, etc., available to the general workplace market, which would in turn reduce the demand for z Series systems, is an irony the court might find chuckle-worthy. Now, do those "rights" have any force in law? I have absolutely NO idea. However, there are areas of consumer protection which could apply (and I speak with all the legal background and experience of any other former tape- ape here [see also: -all, bugger] {Brits please explain phrase to your Colonial counterparts}). I don't see how paying IBM to use its operating system (on a small platform) is denying them their rights. So far as I'm aware, none of the principals on the non-IBM side of this issue have stolen any classified data, nor acted outside their previously negotiated agreements. If I'm wrong about that, please point out the error because I don't recall seeing anything regarding such activities. Customers have paid the principals, the principals have paid IBM, we do the Hokey Pokey and we shake it all about. When you come right down to it, it would be (from my admittedly naïve point of view) far better for all of the parties involved to try to come to some sort of modus vivendi instead of all this (extremely expensive) legal action. Unfortunately, once the [bleep]ing lawyers get their hands on something like this, it is almost impossible to wrest it from their control. But that's just my opinion. I hope I've been neither philosophical nor political. Thus endeth the lesson (oops, preachy! sorry...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
