I don't see any issue with IBM having produced an internal version of the POP. In fact, it has been common knowledge that there was an internal version of the POP since the first days of the S/360 processor line. This version incorporated (not in order of introduction) the MVS Extended Facility instructions (before they became public in a later POP), the Coupling Facility instructions, the Expanded Storage instruction (Move Page (MVPG), before it became public in a later POP), ECPS:MVS, ECPS:VM, and ECPS:VSE, as well as details on emulation features, the APL microcode assist instruction (X'A0'), and the DIAGnose instruction.
Big deal! The lack of availability of documentation on these instructions did not prevent people from running IBM operating systems, they just would not run as fast. VM/370 + ECPS:VM was much faster than VM/370. I would be thrilled to have documentation on the entire instruction set implemented on IBM S/360 and its successors. However, I don't believe that IBM should be compelled to produce it. INTEL processors are known to have undocumented instructions. I expect that AMD processors probably have undocumented instructions. IBM's research and development have been second to none. Have IBM's competitors put monies into R&D to the same degree as IBM? I think not. Are IBM's competitors prepared to reimburse IBM for the billions of dollars IBM has invested over decades in R&D? Not very likely. Add to that that I would expect such renumeration to be adjusted for inflation and for a reasonable profit. In today's competitive market I believe that IBM is fully justified in keeping its trade secrets secret. John P Baker -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Payne Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:28 PM To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU Subject: It keeps getting uglier PSI has also filed its anti-trust suit in the EU. Dearly beloved DG IV is a little different from the New York District Court - it has teeth that it's not afraid to use. http://ww.isham-research.co.uk/ibm-vs-psi-amended.html Has anyone from the Hercules team read IBM's rather stunning admission (on the above page - paragraph 176) that there is a "confidential version" of the PoP? Their words, not mine. And linked this to IBM's commitments under the 1984 EEC Undertaking? Read the words VERY carefully. -- 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
