It’s collusion & illegal. Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. He always bashes IBM. It’s his MO. IBM will win on appeal.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 11:10 AM, Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: No, you don't know his agenda. While I expect this to be overturned on appeal, he is correct that AT&T is not a party to the suit, although I wouldn't be surprised if they filed a friend off the court brief. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Bill Johnson [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:06 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC It’s AT&T’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan <[email protected]> wrote: Um. AT&T's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to this. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson < [email protected]> wrote: > I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT&T. > > IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling. > > "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to > pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM > acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to > remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT&T, > as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT&T > representatives admitted at trial." ® > > It’ll be reversed. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan <[email protected]> wrote: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xJhnZCNeW7_rNin7h4BrhTJh2FKKfaVZoJRtvyBUBiorGShjv3uXoDQVoj41wa3xbw9Du5kLyl_Z3H3CSox90qbGwoIudpZ9NwBtsj0xdkoDwvmWOquUzQkeFu0AfjrJ2a_9BgRpXLwr3VwahvERxN-Sigw6qYPotjrQB1e8apAXdF06ZWmt8Utbx-iG-DexdrckZDein6ub17mp1YDhbqO1SAqXIcnFIEi7D3teVf_BD08Z0ExjAKiuqRgKYRVThnXwEQGOFJ9UgZ9Tb_YaOrL2oXOs1ZrptDwMQlr-VG6JvZbNDruBTpXDD3UzLKzQm4TAb1zyCIJUTC98FZWNgnXqsJJ6D2CZC_AYuRh0HTFU0oSyWJBlzBvExCGziJFd5zJBgqxEgiADr10VcdQ6ekazrWhbLwueSB365b0dFRBk0WCNaG1ot_3VIgEOCOog/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.com%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2Fibm_ordered_to_pay_16%2F > > Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
