https://www.govinfo.gov/app/search/%7B%22query%22%3A%2217-CV-2254%20bmc%22%2C%22offset%22%3A0%7D
17-cv-2254 bmc for the case documents. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 1:16 PM Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > > Well, #1 we are a bunch of jailhouse lawyers without even the source > documents in front of us. Who knows EXACTLY what IBM agreed, or how it is > effectively modified by the operation of law, or what exactly transpired > between IBM and AT&T. > > I *thought* I read that AT&T's "unhook BMC initiative predated IBM. Too lazy > to go confirm. > > Another interpretation of IBM's "failure to go this route" is that they > thought they were good to go as-is. We don't know. Perhaps the judge's > decision is hard to fathom, and IBM will prevail on appeal. We don't know. > > Charles > > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of zMan > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 9:59 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC > > IBM has supported *me *indirectly since before I was born. Bill mistakes > critical thinking for bias, and reveals his own lack of the former and > excess of the latter instead, alas. > > Charles's question is incisive, and reflects IBM's dilemma. However, the > solution would have been to renegotiate or dispute the agreement, not to > unilaterally break it. Whether it's an anticompetitive agreement or not, it > was an agreement. You don't get to say "I think this is invalid and > therefore I'm going to ignore it": that way lies chaos. You instead apply > to a court to have it declared null and void. The fact that IBM with its > legions of lawyers did not go this route suggests (does *not *prove) that > they did not believe they would prevail. > > Speculation, based on having worked with AT&T: I tend to doubt that AT&T > specifically wanted to unhook BMC products. I suspect IBM said "We can save > you $ by using our versions of these products", and that THAT's what AT&T > wanted (as would most any customer). > > I wonder whether in a future, similar scenario, Kyndryl's independence > might change the equation. Similarly, the large number of products IBM has > silently divested (Optim, Rational, SPSS, more) probably also subtly > changes it, in that the savings may not be as realizable. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 12:37 PM Tom Brennan <t...@tombrennansoftware.com> > wrote: > > > I suspect you'll be called an IBM hater anyway :) And probably me too > > just for posting on the subject, even though IBM has indirectly > > supported me and my family since 1983. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
