On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 15:38:40 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote: > >I think we've probably killed the horse by now, but I will use a similar >analogy that I saw in the law suit. I have a cable box and pay a vendor >to supply me a basic set of channels and some premium channels. >There are many more premium channels that the box can get using the >same hardware and cable connections already coming into my >home but I can't get them. Is it a gimmick for the cable company to want >to charge me more to get those channels? Or are they providing a service >and want to be compensated more for increased service. > And if you hack the converter box to get premimum channels at the basic rate, the injured party is clearly the cable company, not the vendor of the converter box. Likewise, IBM is stressing violation of the software licenses above abuse of the hardware. This depends on the language in the software license; if it focuses on the hardware model, IBM's legal position is not as strong as if they focused on the general vs. special engines. This is likely to be far more explicit at the next renewal cycle.
-- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
