|
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
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.