RE: Fast400 Value to iSeries community is less than zero

Nathan,

You have a keen eye.  I think that's the only thing that separates you from
being a lawyer...  ROLFMAO...!


OTOH, what Chris is saying is that IBM isn't necessarily gipping a customer,
because they're getting what they paid for, if you define that according to
measurable work, or CPW.  IANAP (not a physicist) but CPW seems like a
reasonable measure of work.  So the question becomes, is IBM supplying a
tangible good, or computing capability.

I tend to think that legally you may be right.  I also tend to agree it
would be better to license the thing as software.  And I don't see how it
can be denied that "there's something slippery about using a program to burn
cpu cycles".  I think that view is buttressed by the fact that Mr. Gerstner,
at one time, denied there was such a thing as a governor inside the 400, and
that it wouldn't make any business sense to have one.  (I agree with half of
that statement, BTW...;-)  Wish I had that quote, but it was a few years
ago...

OTOH, you wrote "That's the standard IBM line.  But the properties of the
machine are not defined by CFINT.  They're defined by hardware components."
Clearly the properties of just about all things are defined by perception.


Give you an example:  IBM recently bundled Websphere with the OS.  I see
some good in that, and some bad.  Not trying to start a new thread here...
My point is that if M$ had done this, there'd be a swarm of media attention
scrutinizing this and there'd be many exceedingly long threads on the
subject...  But I never saw this regarding IBM's announcement of the
bundling.  That's because it's generally perceived in the iSeries Community
as a good thing.  That's one of the primary advantages that the iSeries
provides to IBM.. a knowledgable Community.

That's an example of what I mean about things being defined primarily by
what is perceived.  Just some food for thought.


jt


> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Nathan M. Andelin
> Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 3:07 PM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>