-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Bowler Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 7:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: Re: T3 Sues IBM To Break its Mainframe Monopoly
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 19:35:38 -0000, Phil Payne wrote: <SNIP> >Paragraphs 38ff are crucial - it has been suggested that these >diagnostics, and especially Amdahl's architecture validator, were the >route by which TIDA/TILA information got into Hercules and thence to both UMX and PSI. I can guess who suggested this, and the suggestion is entirely false. I don't even know what information is in the IBM-Amdahl TIDA/TILA. Whatever is in it, must be pretty ancient history by now. What I *can* tell you is that none of the functionality in Hercules was put there as a result of any external tool. The key point here is that I *know* how Hercules was developed, whereas you are only guessing. <SNIP> What you have said would be a very interesting thing to be cross-examined in court. If, indeed, Hercules is NOT based on TIDA/TILA (second one I don't remember), but is based on other NON-Confidential information, then PSI et al, are in a very interesting position. By being able to show that the architected system (inclusive of the non-documented instructions) of Hercules exists and that they could look to it for certain information, it would take some of the wind out of IBM's sails. Of course, IBM's attorney pool should be aware of this MAJOR problem (to their case). So they just might go down the road of issuing subpoenae... It could get ugly. Now, for an interesting thing about TIDA (which should also be born out in depositions should IBM go that far): When I was at Amdahl, many of us knew of its existence. However, only a very select few were allowed direct access to it. Then they would tell us what they thought certain things meant, and then the second/third level of "engineers" worked on that basis. It was done, as I recall, to keep us from implementing anything exactly as IBM had. So, would this mean that some 10+ years after the fact, that someone similarly informed would not be able to sit down with an IBM machine (or LPAR) and build a program to see what IBM did to effect SIE (e.g. a z/800)? And then take that knowledge and put it into an emulator system? Or do the equivalent for the Service Processor interface instructions (which were published to ISVs -- I say this because I saw that doc at Boole & Babbage). So for those of you into legal issues with IP, just what boundaries would have been crossed by such testing? And if it can be shown that this is how Hercules (or others) came to their implementations, wouldn't this be quite damaging to IBM's claims? I'm wondering about the obviousness issue (with regards to patents) and if this would wreck some of IBM's patents in this area. Not being an attorney, but being a very interested third party (although probably not in the US Legal sense), I'm most interested in how this will turn out. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
