Re: Fast 400 - going out of business...

While I was as irritated with CFINT as the rest of us, it is certainly
not unethical for IBM to use.  If they choose to build every machine
fully-featured and control access to features through software that is
their choice.

Additionally, the only person speaking about this is Stracka, and I
don't take his comments at face value.

On 11/19/05, Steve Richter <stephenrichter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/18/05, Trevor Perry <tperry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Interesting how rumors begin. One guy makes a guess, another guy runs with
> > it ....
> >
> > When you start saying things like "..what right does IBM have.." without
> > concrete evidence of an actual payout, your speculation is simply unfounded
> > gossip.
>
> why would IBM management stay silent on the matter if they did not pay
> Fast400 to not sell its product?

Most likely there was a confidentiality agreement as part of the
settlement.  Even if Stracka pushes the limits of such an agreement,
IBM will be disciplined about not doing so.

> Knowing whether IBM paid them off is
> crucial information.

Why is it crucial to know the financials details of the transaction? 
IBM and Stracka negotiated and came to agreement.  That agreement
included the withdrawal of FAST400.

More interesting to me is whether Stracka gave up the identities of
the FAST400 purchasers.

> We know that IBM had the FBI arrest the FAST400
> principal for extortion.

It is chilling to think that IBM would be so heavy-handed as to
involve the FBI in what is clearly jsut business.  But, we have only
one side of this story, and do not know conversations/interactions
happened before the arrest.  That said, involving the FBI was
certainly a blunder, and probably ended up costing IBM in the final
settlement.

> Yet how could IBM charge extortion one day
> and pay them off the next?

Why do grocery stores pay off clearly dubious slip-and-fall lawsuits? 
Someone decided that is was better to pay the money and be done with
the issue than to continue with it.  Particularly after the FBI
arrest, which was certainly stupid.

> Assuming IBM paid, this is a chilling
> example of the power of large corporations to deny individual liberty.

How is "individual liberty" involved here?  Paying someone to not sell
a product doesn't squash their individual liberty.  And the liberty of
the buyers is not an issue, because we still have the liberty to buy a
similar product from someone else or figure it out ourselves.

As an aside, we have no real evidence that IBM paid.  It seems
possible to me that IBM's lawyers laid out there case to Stracka's
lawyers, and then he caved.  We will likely never know.

> >And the fact that someone's guess reinforces your 'suspicion' about
> > IBM is simply ridiculous and possibly libelous.
>
> that's nice.  IBM management can have you arrested for striking a hard
> bargain ( assuming the payout, of course ) and those in its orbit will
> threaten to sue you if you discuss the topic!

I hardly read Trevor's comment as a threat to sue.

At the end of the day, this is just business.  I don't see much more
than that here.