On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 16:56:06 -0600, Doc Farmer wrote: > >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. >
I'm not a lawyer either, so my opinion is worth about zero. But as far as I can tell, the only real basis to challenge IBM's position is their anti-competitive actions and their monopolistic position with respect to mainframe systems. Isn't that also the basis for the judgement in favor of Amdahl in some of Phil's past posts ??? So it could be just a replay of that case with a different player ??? Hopefully the results will be the same. >I hope I've been neither philosophical nor political. > >Thus endeth the lesson (oops, preachy! sorry...) > I hope I didn't insult. I'm just trying to cut through the fog and understand the strength of PSI's position. I have no desire, expertise nor time to read the legal stuff Phil points to. I like small words and clear concise sentences. Happy New Year !!!!!! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
