Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired between IBM and AT&T.
I *thought* I read that AT&T's "unhook BMC initiative predated IBM. Too lazy to go confirm. Another interpretation of IBM's "failure to go this route" is that they thought they were good to go as-is. We don't know. Perhaps the judge's decision is hard to fathom, and IBM will prevail on appeal. We don't know. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC IBM has supported *me *indirectly since before I was born. Bill mistakes critical thinking for bias, and reveals his own lack of the former and excess of the latter instead, alas. Charles's question is incisive, and reflects IBM's dilemma. However, the solution would have been to renegotiate or dispute the agreement, not to unilaterally break it. Whether it's an anticompetitive agreement or not, it was an agreement. You don't get to say "I think this is invalid and therefore I'm going to ignore it": that way lies chaos. You instead apply to a court to have it declared null and void. The fact that IBM with its legions of lawyers did not go this route suggests (does *not *prove) that they did not believe they would prevail. Speculation, based on having worked with AT&T: I tend to doubt that AT&T specifically wanted to unhook BMC products. I suspect IBM said "We can save you $ by using our versions of these products", and that THAT's what AT&T wanted (as would most any customer). I wonder whether in a future, similar scenario, Kyndryl's independence might change the equation. Similarly, the large number of products IBM has silently divested (Optim, Rational, SPSS, more) probably also subtly changes it, in that the savings may not be as realizable. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Brennan <[email protected]> wrote: > I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :) And probably me too > just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly > supported me and my family since 1983. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
