Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

On Friday 09 November 2001 04:06 pm, Nathan M. Andelin wrote:

> 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.

Well, you must certainly be much more qualified to make a legal decision in
this area than I am, but I would think that IBM does have some ability to
control this area.

Even if IBM were to sell the hardware without license, they can license the
software. Now, I'm not sure that they have the ability to protect their
license stipulations regarding the use of the software, but I'm sure they
can afford to bring it to court.

So I sure don't know if there is a legal issue that keeps IBM from being
able to market the iSeries by CPW the way they have. Maybe they cannot
protect the licenses the way they think they can. But if they can't, and if
they lose that (presumed) lawsuit that lets them protect their iSeries
profitability, there are two possible outcomes: 1. They devise some other
way of assigning the same prices to the same machines. 2. They have to make
a choice as to whether or not to continue to market the iSeries.

I'm not sure that everyone within IBM feels like continuing to market the
iSeries is the best choice.

Personally, I don't know why (legally) a company would not be able to
license a hardware/software combination as they see fit unless they were a
monopoly and abusing the market. This must fall into an area I'm not
familiar with.

> 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.

I'm sorry if I was giving the impression I intended to disparage a legal
point of view of the CFINT issue. My argument is that IBM did not "sell" a
500 CPW machine and hobble it. A customer ordered a machine capable of 50
CPW and received that. If the customer is now saying they have a legal
right to break the agreement made with IBM (if that required them to not
modify) and tap resources the machine has, I'd say that is a moral/legal
question. We know they didn't order the extra capacity, didn't pay for it,
and IBM did not mean for them to use it. But in no way could I see that the
user is "justified" by IBM "cheating them" or some such.

I do think that a very valid complaint was raised in that the CFINT
governor overshoots when kicking in and sometimes shuts down available CPW
to users at the times when they need it most. I would suggest that this is
an issue that IBM _must_ address.

> Nathan M. Andelin
> www.relational-data.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31