OS/360 and VM/370 were public domain. It wasn't until VM/SP that IBM
charged for its VM system and, thereby took it out of the public domain.
Amdahl was never sued for building a VM based on VM/370. Jerry DePass
liked to tell the story about receiving a package from Dewayne
Hendricks, marked with the Amdahl logo. He took it unopened to the legal
department where the lawyer's opened it. Inside was a VM/470 manual.



-----Original Message-----
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David Boyes
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 7:25 AM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: IBM sues PSI

> How does PSI differ from amdahl, NAS, Hitachi and other IBM compatible

> hardware vendors from the past?

Speculation: (IANAL)

1) The historical vendors legitimately licensed some of the technology
from IBM or independently developed compatible widgets to the IBM stuff
published in the PoP without any reference to the real stuff. The
independent development route is probably impossible for any
organization that doesn't have a research arm on the scale of IBM's, and
if they did, they'd have to worry about #2 below given the screwed-up
state of patent law these days.

2) There's a lot more patentable and actually patented stuff in the
current machines. Unless PSI's IP lawyers did their homework VERY
carefully, it's pretty likely they missed something. 

3) At least part of the contention appears to be related to OS/390 and
z/OS code. Part of having patents and/or trademarks is that you have to
actively pursue them or you are deemed to have released them into the
public domain. Losing control of the OS/390 and/or z/OS IP that way
would be catastrophic, so they're enabling and deploying the nuclear
device that is IBM Legal to protect the bigger cash cow that is z/OS by
rendering a small annoyance into a pile of smoking rubble. 

Personally, I'd expect an out-of-court settlement with undisclosed
terms. PSI doesn't have the resources to resist that level of legal
assault, and there's clearly some technically legal but pretty gray
areas in what they're doing. 

Reply via email to