On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:14:30 -0500, Tony Harminc wrote: >On 22 January 2014 08:36, John McKown wrote: >> Now wouldn't that be a kick? An Enterprise COBOL compatible compiler which >> produced Java byte code. That >> would likely sell a lot of zAAPs. > >Don't think it hasn't been seriously considered by more than one >party... But as with any number of other such approaches, it would be >limited by its own success. If it managed to displace any significant >amount of IBM revenue by shifting "legacy" workloads to cheaper >processors, IBM would put a stop to it, either technically or by new >Ts & Cs of some sort. > Does IBM have any IP protection on COBOL? I'd assume, "can't", except for IBM's extensions and idiosyncrasies. But it would be pretty hard to market against IBM without those extensions.
Ts & Cs, of course, are orthogonal to any protection provided by USPTO. Micro Focus? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
