"I find it ironic. If IBM believes that he has divulged proprietary data, then of course they won't tell him of any customers running z/OS on Hercules under an NDA. So his lack of proof is not only not proof of absence, it isn't even suggestive of absence."
Well, two issues: a) I have never, ever divulged anything that has been given to me under the strict or apparent terms of an NDA. I try not to sign the things anyway. You just have no idea how I work. b) In the specific instance, IBM has refused to tell me precisely what they were objecting to back then. I strongly suspect it was the codename "Pterodactyl" - but that was hardly a secret since Bill Zeitler himself revealed it in a magazine interview a year before. Ever tried to get an IBM lawyer to admit a mistake? I have always relied on my own resources to find out what IBM is planning. I don't always discuss what I know, e.g., about Castor-less mainframes, because it isn't always productive. Juts to give you a clue (http://www.isham-research.co.uk/clue.html) I'm just about the only independent analyst left specialising in IBM mainframes - and we got this thing called the Internet that some people use to send emails. -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
