Re: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

From: "Chris Rehm" <javadisciple@earthlink.net>

> 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.

That's the standard IBM line.  But the properties of the machine are not
defined by CFINT.  They're defined by hardware components.

The Power PC chip has a circuit that enables the processor to run at a wide
range of configurable speeds based on the speed of the system clock.  I
think the same CPU is used in a wide range of models and configured
according to the CPW targets that IBM wants to market to.  IBM may disclose
that the CPU is a 200 Mhz chip for example, but IBM is talking about its
rated speed, not it's configured speed.  It may actually be configured to
run at 60 Mhz, for example.

If someone were bright enough, they could probably figure out a way of
changing the configuration of the chip, or swap a low-speed clock for a
high-speed clock, and thereby dramatically increase the performance of their
box.  Would there be anything wrong with that?

To answer that question, you need to go back to who owns the box, the
customer or IBM.  If you buy a car and modify its engine to perform better,
is there any difference?

Actually somebody over in the MI list summarized a court case involving IBM
equipment.  A customer made some simple changes to their hardware and viola,
double the performance.  IBM argued the point that the customer needed to
pay for the extra capacity, which was equivalent to their higher priced
model.  IBM reportedly lost the case.

> 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.

A customer agreement is possibly IBM's latest tac.  I think the problem for
IBM is that a customer is not liable for breaking an agreement that's
illegal in the first place.  Particularly if the agreement is written by the
vendor, and generic to all sales.  People who have invested in IBM equipment
over a number of years can't be held hostage by IBM's interests.  They have
a right to be in business too.

> 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.

This comes back to the question of whether "capacity" can be bought or sold.
Again, I don't think so.  Hardware can be bought and sold.  Software can be
licensed or transferred.  "Capacity" doesn't have an ownership basis, AFAIK.

I don't like to be taking a position that's different than IBM's.  I sell
only iSeries software and services.  I need the iSeries to be successful.
But there's something slippery about using a program to burn cpu cycles.

It would seem so much more strait forward if IBM were to stop saying that
"interactive features" is hardware, and simple ask customers to pay for a
5250 license the way Citrix asks cusomers to pay for it's terminal emulation
software.

Nathan M. Andelin
www.relational-data.com