I do not believe that the terms of the settlement between Amdahl and IBM were ever made public. IIRC, part of it was to cross-license certain patents. Without disclosure of the settlements, it is impossible for an outsider to know if the issue was really settled in a more general sense. I imagine that the IBM legal team made certain that the wording indicated that the settlement was very narrow and specific in its application.
One difference between then and now is that Amdahl machines were built to execute the 370 instruction set, not just emulate it. There was no microcode in the 470, the machine of the day when the suits were filed. The differences were in the error reporting area. The only O/S updates (MVS or VM) for Amdahl were in the EREP and the error recording area (different data captured for a machine check, for example). There were no modifications to handle instructions that were almost, but not quite, the same (ala GE with 5 or 7, I forget which, instructions that were documented to behave differently than the 360s with which the machines were "compatible"). -----Original Message----- From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Thigpen Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 6:32 AM To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU Subject: Re: IBM sues PSI THAT is the root of the argument. PSI says they are a "PCM" (Plug Compatible Mainframe). That is the same term used for Amdahl, etc. and was the subject of, and resolved by, historical lawsuits. IBM does not agree that 1) they are a PCM, or 2) this has been resolved in the past. Tony Thigpen -----Original Message ----- From: Stracka, James (GTI) Sent: 12/06/2006 09:12 AM > How does PSI differ from amdahl, NAS, Hitachi and other IBM compatible > hardware vendors from the past? > > -----Original Message----- > From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of David Boyes > Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 4:30 PM > To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU > Subject: Re: IBM sues PSI > > >> First, I don't think IBM is branching out into the healthcare area. > > Obligatory historical footnote: IBM *did* build lab blood chemistry > and other biomedical equipment starting in 1972 (cf. the 2991 Blood > Cell Processor). Equipment manufacturing and repair ended in 1984 with > the sale of the biomedical business to COBE Laboratories, Inc. > >> (One assumes you meant patent infringement.) > > Indeed. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/ > -------------------------------------------------------- > >
