Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

["Nathan M. Andelin" <nandelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>
> I would say that licensing is more a domain of customer/provider
> contract.

A "bill of sale" accompanies hardware and assigns exclusive ownership, while
a "license" (permission to use) accompanies software and provides limited,
non-exclusive rights.

After the sale, the customer pretty much has all rights to the hardware.  So
the classification of "Interactive Features" as hardware or software is
critical in a legal context.  I don't see this as only a public relations
problem.  IBM doesn't have much say over what a customer can/can't do with
purchased hardware.

> But taking it in the context you prefer, it would seem that the
> limitation does come as a result of the hardware/software combination
> right?

If you mean that the customer buys hardware, and software, yes.  If you mean
that "Interactive Features" can be classified as both hardware and software,
I don't think so.

> CPW would be a measure of workload capability, a combination of
> software/hardware performance, right?

Yes.

> So it would only seem to apply to a customer who wishes
> to license IBM's hardware/software combination which is
> marketed as the iSeries.

If you're saying that CPW is something that can be bought or sold, I don't
think so (regardless of what IBM would have us believe).  Hardware can be
bought and sold.  Software can be licensed or transferred.  But I don't
think a hardware/software combination can be licensed.  And I don't think
anybody holds exclusive rights to "performance", "capacity", "transactions
per minute", and the like.  So CPW can't be bought or sold.

Chris, your points about IBM needing to cover costs, make a profit, be in
business, provide solutions, etc. are excellent.  It's just that the legal
and public perceptions about CFINT seem to be valid too.


Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com