Also (thanks to a friend): https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/lgvdwqmzkpo/IP%20IBM%20TRADESECRETS%20complaint.pdf
That's the Texas Wormhole case--the U.S. version of the same thing. I gotta say, my reaction to this is (a) did they really think they'd get away with it? As an early manager told me, "IBM's lawyers can beat up our lawyers" and I'm sure that's even true for Moores, especially after he lost with Neon; and (b) this was beyond ambitious. IBM has over six decades of building this instruction set, and cloning it into a set of C macros just seems...crazy. Fun, but crazy. I mean, the folks building the silicon gave up a quarter-century ago; how did they really think they'd be able to do this *and keep up*?? -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of P H Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 4:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: IBM wins against LzLabs https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2025/532.html#para1121 Sent from Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg> ________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Martin Trübner <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2025 7:22:36 am To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: IBM wins against LzLabs Phil, >> I read (well, skimmed) the full decision (240pp) would you care to post the link? Martin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
