Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
There are numerous examples in the history of this group where members have pilloried articles (and authors) that demonstrate a significant lack of understanding about the mainframe. It was initially amusing (now it's just boring) that some members don't seem inclined to apply the same critical restraint to themselves. How did we survive before kill files? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 09:10:34 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: >... This list could make >a rule "no criticism of IBM" or "no criticism of BMC" without violating the >Constitution. > I hope the list makes no such rule. It might unduly constrain writers untrained in journalistic who might carelessly cross the line between ad rem criticism of a product to ad hominem criticism of its supplier. And Prior Restraint can be offensive. -- gil -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
And Freedom of Speech applies to "Congress" (and by extension the States). It does not apply to a private venue such as this one. This list could make a rule "no criticism of IBM" or "no criticism of BMC" without violating the Constitution. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Tony Perri, Santa Rosa Software Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:55 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in the US. There are many things you cannot say freely, such as "fire" in a crowded theater causing mass panic, when in fact, there was no fire. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Freedom of speech is not guaranteed in the US. There are many things you cannot say freely, such as "fire" in a crowded theater causing mass panic, when in fact, there was no fire. Best regards, Tony Perri, CEO/Co-founder Santa Rosa Software, LLC https://santarosasoftware.com tony.pe...@santarosasoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:27 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC With freedom of speech guarantied in this country, he has every right to criticize what Bill chooses to worship, just as Bill has every right to disregard that criticism. You, of course, have every right to criticize either or both of them, and they both have every right to ignore such criticism. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Mohammad Khan [mkkha...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1PoqZoK4HGb52rMKj8Fs-tKtjKSvJzYo1vmVvsUdV5rDNPTWqj_V-0BOVtZYj5YFPkPyLLklN54NDBh5rksmOpxzv6Zjo4002GHQXuJ4Or_xiwV71qgkQ8cPv5DuGT0bf015y_1XVKNYVhhtDGPD1xQYdtdC_jlKnN3zJP3Vnt5XHt6xn3XZkKRSKaN-KZxxK8QboVTfQFJqTYyUwbcCh21LWSkGZXZ1rgGC41KlR5liqqkvAyv5LjrrjDYZKabXnVlq0hhN6uxBr9TQmDOM8EiRtD4jf11A1_b_rQAEo2tRnJK4CGnVP6573MOLVQ-LgvKFp2Rm6Mjcf8TaAOQAYNU-nKMkZu6XoJYLwhtd7D6satrRWx36dIS8x7Gi7Kicw7p0XDxrr0JdCAH-OGm5uKljAZT4s0ZXIErzCk6ih82aO7PH2EejjreqxVhDLwdo8/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
This has been an entertaining read. My 2 cents' worth is that it could be factual that you said you stated your opinion. And, factually, you did state your opinion. Hopefully not to offend and respectfully, Tony Perri, CEO/Co-founder Santa Rosa Software, LLC https://santarosasoftware.com tony.pe...@santarosasoftware.com -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC LOL, and you people said I can't read. I actually said OPINION for 5. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 10:23:26 AM EDT, Seymour J Metz wrote: Item 5 is an opinion, not a fact. Do you know what is in the sealed motions? Do you know what effect they will have on the final outcome? I expect the judgement to be overturned, but the Universe often blows away expectations, and there are a lot of jokers in this deck. Even were I privy to all of the data I wouldn't be willing to bet on the outcome. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. What I've said about IBM is this. 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan wrote: Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYdTjmJHv89ViLHZLJjfadg4E-unGI2a7JhinaolNTp7KHuaep2IZC_gChShakUjMwGKmhgVnbhl-jOFakqpYYoWJV4oEWVttaFSkMeMkBGYVG6cuIGgxADjCFukXBhDJbRC3jVdsY4KOIiTsnb8-UT1iEYTcMdFimF7on0AIDdGYd9S45aL9emrzrNjkfRQ0jdgcxu5PyqU1VMdkzUqtI-X_hkhbUo-Cc35YEWyKT4GTDKgKw5da5z4ZszBdmikiyVaC3Jstn4iCd-oFCTL16feBUYa0hef7Jxh7bEc1O3_EfCnn4Pxa3zoPQDTICW15w6Bue8-79aoQsjSHSVU9pao6PVjNCNzfQinLKMRyAkvd94yELM7z_eoouzQNFJaVx6kzMVrM24g8rzd-svSIzyKtJBKs9cgd6Qf_LFiWjkALsviZedLGbBr0gFpPhmG/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- 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 / sign
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
It’s the Yahoo free email system. Every fact/opinion was AFTER the statement regardless. 5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, June 6, 2022, 10:30 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: "Fact.5." Some people can't remember what they wrote. Now, it may be that you garbled the punctuation, but that's a you issue, not a me issue. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC LOL, and you people said I can't read. I actually said OPINION for 5. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 10:23:26 AM EDT, Seymour J Metz wrote: Item 5 is an opinion, not a fact. Do you know what is in the sealed motions? Do you know what effect they will have on the final outcome? I expect the judgement to be overturned, but the Universe often blows away expectations, and there are a lot of jokers in this deck. Even were I privy to all of the data I wouldn't be willing to bet on the outcome. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. What I've said about IBM is this. 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan wrote: Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYdTjmJHv89ViLHZLJjfadg4E-unGI2a7JhinaolNTp7KHuaep2IZC_gChShakUjMwGKmhgVnbhl-jOFakqpYYoWJV4oEWVttaFSkMeMkBGYVG6cuIGgxADjCFukXBhDJbRC3jVdsY4KOIiTsnb8-UT1iEYTcMdFimF7on0AIDdGYd9S45aL9emrzrNjkfRQ0jdgcxu5PyqU1VMdkzUqtI-X_hkhbUo-Cc35YEWyKT4GTDKgKw5da5z4ZszBdmikiyVaC3Jstn4iCd-oFCTL16feBUYa0hef7Jxh7bEc1O3_EfCnn4Pxa3zoPQDTICW15w6Bue8-79aoQsjSHSVU9pao6PVjNCNzfQinLKMRyAkvd94yELM7z_eoouzQNFJaVx6kzMVrM24g8rzd-svSIzyKtJBKs9cgd6Qf_LFiWjkALsviZedLGbBr0gFpPhmG/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- For IBM-MAIN subsc
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
"Fact.5." Some people can't remember what they wrote. Now, it may be that you garbled the punctuation, but that's a you issue, not a me issue. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:25 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC LOL, and you people said I can't read. I actually said OPINION for 5. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 10:23:26 AM EDT, Seymour J Metz wrote: Item 5 is an opinion, not a fact. Do you know what is in the sealed motions? Do you know what effect they will have on the final outcome? I expect the judgement to be overturned, but the Universe often blows away expectations, and there are a lot of jokers in this deck. Even were I privy to all of the data I wouldn't be willing to bet on the outcome. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. What I've said about IBM is this. 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan wrote: Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYdTjmJHv89ViLHZLJjfadg4E-unGI2a7JhinaolNTp7KHuaep2IZC_gChShakUjMwGKmhgVnbhl-jOFakqpYYoWJV4oEWVttaFSkMeMkBGYVG6cuIGgxADjCFukXBhDJbRC3jVdsY4KOIiTsnb8-UT1iEYTcMdFimF7on0AIDdGYd9S45aL9emrzrNjkfRQ0jdgcxu5PyqU1VMdkzUqtI-X_hkhbUo-Cc35YEWyKT4GTDKgKw5da5z4ZszBdmikiyVaC3Jstn4iCd-oFCTL16feBUYa0hef7Jxh7bEc1O3_EfCnn4Pxa3zoPQDTICW15w6Bue8-79aoQsjSHSVU9pao6PVjNCNzfQinLKMRyAkvd94yELM7z_eoouzQNFJaVx6kzMVrM24g8rzd-svSIzyKtJBKs9cgd6Qf_LFiWjkALsviZedLGbBr0gFpPhmG/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- For IBM-MAIN subsc
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Are you the TRON guy? If so, everyone needs to google you. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 10:18:30 AM EDT, Jay Maynard wrote: You've made your position abundantly clear, Bill. Now drop it. On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 9:14 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. > What I've said about IBM is this. > 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like > a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. > 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. > 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable > on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. > (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in > April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon > my knowledge of the law. > > On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan < > mkkha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Gabe, > With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business > criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. > Regards > MKK > > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg > wrote: > > >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a > career based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold > my shares because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in > anyway. I was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the > price where I sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have > increased greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an > experienced observer over decades. > > > >Bill, are you familiar withhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would > have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously > arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. > So if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > > > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. > First, you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the > law. Third, you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal > necessary because the case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether > the appeal will be accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what > appeal judges will decide. > > > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal > matters because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were > qualified to study to be a lawyer? Seriously? > > > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM > worshiper. I don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your > reflexive defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across > as worship. Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your > opinions less than credible. > > > > -- > 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 > -- Jay Maynard -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
With freedom of speech guarantied in this country, he has every right to criticize what Bill chooses to worship, just as Bill has every right to disregard that criticism. You, of course, have every right to criticize either or both of them, and they both have every right to ignore such criticism. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Mohammad Khan [mkkha...@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 9:53 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1PoqZoK4HGb52rMKj8Fs-tKtjKSvJzYo1vmVvsUdV5rDNPTWqj_V-0BOVtZYj5YFPkPyLLklN54NDBh5rksmOpxzv6Zjo4002GHQXuJ4Or_xiwV71qgkQ8cPv5DuGT0bf015y_1XVKNYVhhtDGPD1xQYdtdC_jlKnN3zJP3Vnt5XHt6xn3XZkKRSKaN-KZxxK8QboVTfQFJqTYyUwbcCh21LWSkGZXZ1rgGC41KlR5liqqkvAyv5LjrrjDYZKabXnVlq0hhN6uxBr9TQmDOM8EiRtD4jf11A1_b_rQAEo2tRnJK4CGnVP6573MOLVQ-LgvKFp2Rm6Mjcf8TaAOQAYNU-nKMkZu6XoJYLwhtd7D6satrRWx36dIS8x7Gi7Kicw7p0XDxrr0JdCAH-OGm5uKljAZT4s0ZXIErzCk6ih82aO7PH2EejjreqxVhDLwdo8/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
LOL, and you people said I can't read. I actually said OPINION for 5. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 10:23:26 AM EDT, Seymour J Metz wrote: Item 5 is an opinion, not a fact. Do you know what is in the sealed motions? Do you know what effect they will have on the final outcome? I expect the judgement to be overturned, but the Universe often blows away expectations, and there are a lot of jokers in this deck. Even were I privy to all of the data I wouldn't be willing to bet on the outcome. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. What I've said about IBM is this. 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan wrote: Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYdTjmJHv89ViLHZLJjfadg4E-unGI2a7JhinaolNTp7KHuaep2IZC_gChShakUjMwGKmhgVnbhl-jOFakqpYYoWJV4oEWVttaFSkMeMkBGYVG6cuIGgxADjCFukXBhDJbRC3jVdsY4KOIiTsnb8-UT1iEYTcMdFimF7on0AIDdGYd9S45aL9emrzrNjkfRQ0jdgcxu5PyqU1VMdkzUqtI-X_hkhbUo-Cc35YEWyKT4GTDKgKw5da5z4ZszBdmikiyVaC3Jstn4iCd-oFCTL16feBUYa0hef7Jxh7bEc1O3_EfCnn4Pxa3zoPQDTICW15w6Bue8-79aoQsjSHSVU9pao6PVjNCNzfQinLKMRyAkvd94yELM7z_eoouzQNFJaVx6kzMVrM24g8rzd-svSIzyKtJBKs9cgd6Qf_LFiWjkALsviZedLGbBr0gFpPhmG/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- 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 -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Item 5 is an opinion, not a fact. Do you know what is in the sealed motions? Do you know what effect they will have on the final outcome? I expect the judgement to be overturned, but the Universe often blows away expectations, and there are a lot of jokers in this deck. Even were I privy to all of the data I wouldn't be willing to bet on the outcome. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 10:13 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. What I've said about IBM is this. 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan wrote: Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar >withhttps://secure-web.cisco.com/1eYdTjmJHv89ViLHZLJjfadg4E-unGI2a7JhinaolNTp7KHuaep2IZC_gChShakUjMwGKmhgVnbhl-jOFakqpYYoWJV4oEWVttaFSkMeMkBGYVG6cuIGgxADjCFukXBhDJbRC3jVdsY4KOIiTsnb8-UT1iEYTcMdFimF7on0AIDdGYd9S45aL9emrzrNjkfRQ0jdgcxu5PyqU1VMdkzUqtI-X_hkhbUo-Cc35YEWyKT4GTDKgKw5da5z4ZszBdmikiyVaC3Jstn4iCd-oFCTL16feBUYa0hef7Jxh7bEc1O3_EfCnn4Pxa3zoPQDTICW15w6Bue8-79aoQsjSHSVU9pao6PVjNCNzfQinLKMRyAkvd94yELM7z_eoouzQNFJaVx6kzMVrM24g8rzd-svSIzyKtJBKs9cgd6Qf_LFiWjkALsviZedLGbBr0gFpPhmG/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FStreisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
You've made your position abundantly clear, Bill. Now drop it. On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 9:14 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. > What I've said about IBM is this. > 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like > a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. > 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. > 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable > on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. > (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in > April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon > my knowledge of the law. > > On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan < > mkkha...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Gabe, > With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business > criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. > Regards > MKK > > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg > wrote: > > >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a > career based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold > my shares because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in > anyway. I was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the > price where I sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have > increased greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an > experienced observer over decades. > > > >Bill, are you familiar withhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect > which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would > have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously > arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. > So if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > > > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. > First, you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the > law. Third, you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal > necessary because the case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether > the appeal will be accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what > appeal judges will decide. > > > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal > matters because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were > qualified to study to be a lawyer? Seriously? > > > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM > worshiper. I don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your > reflexive defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across > as worship. Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your > opinions less than credible. > > > > -- > 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 > -- Jay Maynard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I don't worship anyone or anything. It sets you up for disappointment. What I've said about IBM is this. 1. They've survived 111 years in a industry that spits out companies like a baseball player chewing tobacco. Fact. 2. They lead the world in patents. Almost every year. Fact. 3. Their major platform still is the most secure, fastest, and reliable on the planet and they process the vast majority of important transactions. (all facts)4. Their lawsuit against GlobalFoundries was reinstated in April. Fact.5. The lawsuit with BMC will be overturned. Opinion based upon my knowledge of the law. On Monday, June 6, 2022, 09:53:37 AM EDT, Mohammad Khan wrote: Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar withhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect >which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Gabe, With freedom of religion guaranteed in this country, you have no business criticizing what or who Bill chooses to worship. Regards MKK On Sat, 4 Jun 2022 16:29:48 -0400, Gabe Goldberg wrote: >I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career >based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares >because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I >was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I >sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased >greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer >over decades. > >Bill, are you familiar withhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect >which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would >have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously >arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So >if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. > >Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, >you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, >you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the >case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be >accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will >decide. > >You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters >because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study >to be a lawyer? Seriously? > >You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I >don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive >defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. >Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than >credible. > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Here here! Reminds me of my grand kids, 5 and 9 years old arguing Carmen On 6/6/2022 8:22 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: This thread is getting tedious. For those that are so inclined can you take your food fight to an e-mail thread outside of this list? For one I’m not impressed with name calling, speculation and other forms of communication about something no one on this list knows about or can influence. I understand people have opinions and that is fine but this has gone on too long and as a new mainframe looking at this list it looks like a flame war and not very professional. Let’s step back, let it cool down for a few days and I suspect we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief. I’m sure there will be new news items that will come up with new details and less speculation. Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org “Quantity has a quality all its own.” — Joseph Stalin On Jun 6, 2022, at 9:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: Be thankful that you don't know; I'd hate to be on a jury for a complex and long running case. But at least none of the evidence is likely to be traumatic. Serve on a Federal grand jury and you may see things that you'd rather not. Yeah, McDonald's looks different once you know that they were warned that the coffee was well above industry standard temperature and that there were prior injuries. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email tolists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- /I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. *Abraham Lincoln*/ -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
This thread is getting tedious. For those that are so inclined can you take your food fight to an e-mail thread outside of this list? For one I’m not impressed with name calling, speculation and other forms of communication about something no one on this list knows about or can influence. I understand people have opinions and that is fine but this has gone on too long and as a new mainframe looking at this list it looks like a flame war and not very professional. Let’s step back, let it cool down for a few days and I suspect we’ll all breathe a sigh of relief. I’m sure there will be new news items that will come up with new details and less speculation. Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org “Quantity has a quality all its own.” — Joseph Stalin > On Jun 6, 2022, at 9:13 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: > > Be thankful that you don't know; I'd hate to be on a jury for a complex and > long running case. > > But at least none of the evidence is likely to be traumatic. Serve on a > Federal grand jury and you may see things that you'd rather not. > > Yeah, McDonald's looks different once you know that they were warned that the > coffee was well above industry standard temperature and that there were prior > injuries. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Be thankful that you don't know; I'd hate to be on a jury for a complex and long running case. But at least none of the evidence is likely to be traumatic. Serve on a Federal grand jury and you may see things that you'd rather not. Yeah, McDonald's looks different once you know that they were warned that the coffee was well above industry standard temperature and that there were prior injuries. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bob Bridges [robhbrid...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:54 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC Indeed. I've long ago concluded that I DON'T KNOW what's going on behind the scenes. For example, we love to repeat horror stories about legal decisions that have everyone exclaiming "miscarriage of justice" - but often enough when I learn of some of the background details, I realize our judgement isn't so obvious and inevitable after all. That jury decision, for instance, about the lady who sued MacDonald's after hot coffee landed in her lap. Or the infamous Klan-Nazi trial decision. Heck, I've BEEN on juries that came to decisions I felt the need to explain afterward. So nowadays when I hear of some inexplicable legal outcome, I tend to suppose there are details I didn't know about. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The main thing we learn from a serious attempt to practise the Christian virtues is that we fail. If there was any idea that God had set us a sort of exam and that we might get good marks by deserving them, that has to be wiped out. If there was any idea of a sort of bargain -- any idea that we could perform our side of the contract and thus put God in our debts so that it was up to Him, in mere justice, to perform his side -- that has to be wiped out. -C S Lewis, "Christian Behavior" */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 08:21 I doubt that anybody on the list is in a posiiion to make more than an educated guess about the final outcome. Even with knowledge of all the facts in the case predictions would be dicey because of, e.g., excluded evidence. The only prediction that I would make is that the appeal process will be complicated, expensive and long. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Indeed. I've long ago concluded that I DON'T KNOW what's going on behind the scenes. For example, we love to repeat horror stories about legal decisions that have everyone exclaiming "miscarriage of justice" - but often enough when I learn of some of the background details, I realize our judgement isn't so obvious and inevitable after all. That jury decision, for instance, about the lady who sued MacDonald's after hot coffee landed in her lap. Or the infamous Klan-Nazi trial decision. Heck, I've BEEN on juries that came to decisions I felt the need to explain afterward. So nowadays when I hear of some inexplicable legal outcome, I tend to suppose there are details I didn't know about. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The main thing we learn from a serious attempt to practise the Christian virtues is that we fail. If there was any idea that God had set us a sort of exam and that we might get good marks by deserving them, that has to be wiped out. If there was any idea of a sort of bargain -- any idea that we could perform our side of the contract and thus put God in our debts so that it was up to Him, in mere justice, to perform his side -- that has to be wiped out. -C S Lewis, "Christian Behavior" */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Seymour J Metz Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 08:21 I doubt that anybody on the list is in a posiiion to make more than an educated guess about the final outcome. Even with knowledge of all the facts in the case predictions would be dicey because of, e.g., excluded evidence. The only prediction that I would make is that the appeal process will be complicated, expensive and long. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I don't remember anyone claiming more than the article actually said. Now can we please move along? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
"The house is white on this side" (RAH, SIASL) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Tony Harminc [t...@harminc.net] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:09 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills 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 Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience" doesn't make us lawyers or even experts. Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be overturned is just silly. Tony H. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Please stop claiming that text says more than it actually says. The word "ordered" does not mean that IBM will actualy pay anything. Given the presence of sealed motions, I doubt that anybody on the list is in a posiiion to make more than an educated guess about the final outcome. Even with knowledge of all the facts in the case predictions would be dicey because of, e.g., excluded evidence. The only prediction that I would make is that the appeal process will be complicated, expensive and long. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 3:48 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 3:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills 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 Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience" doesn't make us lawyers or even experts. Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be overturned is just silly. Tony H. -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
First off, I didn’t say YOU were a disgruntled ex IBM worker. Just that there are a plethora of them. IBM was even sued by some over the years. Age discrimination, if I’m not mistaken was a big reason. Which could explain why so many here are anti IBM. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Monday, June 6, 2022, 12:21 AM, g...@gabegold.com wrote: I left IBM in 1971 after working there three years. It was a great first job and I left on wonderful terms, was invited to return after getting real-world (that is, customer) experience. Three years, of course, meant that IBM's pension plan/benefits weren't relevant to me. I got plenty of customer -- and then ISV -- experience though neglected to return. But as a customer and then ISV executive I had a rewarding decades-long relationship with IBM, including, for a few years, editing and writing a technology magazine for them. So speculating that I'm in any way motivated as a disgruntled ex-IBMer is laughable. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I left IBM in 1971 after working there three years. It was a great first job and I left on wonderful terms, was invited to return after getting real-world (that is, customer) experience. Three years, of course, meant that IBM's pension plan/benefits weren't relevant to me. I got plenty of customer -- and then ISV -- experience though neglected to return. But as a customer and then ISV executive I had a rewarding decades-long relationship with IBM, including, for a few years, editing and writing a technology magazine for them. So speculating that I'm in any way motivated as a disgruntled ex-IBMer is laughable. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
What’s hilarious is if you google disgruntled IBM employees, there’s a whole group of ex IBMers who routinely bash IBM because IBM laid them off or cut their benefits. Switching from pensions to 401k was a big cry for many who worked there. My bet is many here are in that group. IT workers should have unionized decades ago. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, June 4, 2022, 10:33 PM, g...@gabegold.com wrote: OK, got it -- you're here to rant and insult. Good that it amuses you. This is pretty far from useful discussion of mainframes -- the reason the rest of us are here. Bye. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Funny nobody mentioned the reinstatement of the 2.5 billion IBM lawsuit against GlobalFoundries. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, June 4, 2022, 10:33 PM, g...@gabegold.com wrote: OK, got it -- you're here to rant and insult. Good that it amuses you. This is pretty far from useful discussion of mainframes -- the reason the rest of us are here. Bye. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
OK, got it -- you're here to rant and insult. Good that it amuses you. This is pretty far from useful discussion of mainframes -- the reason the rest of us are here. Bye. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
LOLOLOLOL, you insulted me. And my logic and facts are spot on. You didn’t even know what IBM’s ROE was. I suspect you don’t even understand ROE. Because you only mentioned the stock price. Do you know the difference between growth & value stocks? You routinely claim things I never said. I’ve got more education than most here. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, June 4, 2022, 9:42 PM, g...@gabegold.com wrote: Bill, what's your goal in arguing about IBM? To convince people of anything or just to rant? Reflexively denying things -- mostly without credible facts or logical substance -- and insulting people with whom you disagree, isn't effective debating. You just look silly, alienate people, and certainly don't change anyone's mind. If you'd actually gone to law school instead of doing whatever you've done since you passed up that opportunity for education, you might have learned how to make cogent and perhaps convincing arguments, without personal attacks. It's a serious question -- what's your goal? Are you achieving it? -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Bill, what's your goal in arguing about IBM? To convince people of anything or just to rant? Reflexively denying things -- mostly without credible facts or logical substance -- and insulting people with whom you disagree, isn't effective debating. You just look silly, alienate people, and certainly don't change anyone's mind. If you'd actually gone to law school instead of doing whatever you've done since you passed up that opportunity for education, you might have learned how to make cogent and perhaps convincing arguments, without personal attacks. It's a serious question -- what's your goal? Are you achieving it? -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Thanks. On 05/06/2022 02:25, Matt Hogstrom wrote: >> On the other hand, has or not IBM acquired Candle and its Omegamon? (I >> worked with IBM and Candle in the early 90's.) TIA. >> > IBM acquired OMEGAMON several years ago and has since sold it to partners who > now OEM it. Rocket Software develops the OMEGAMON suite now. > > Matt Hogstrom > m...@hogstrom.org > > “It may be cognitive, but, it ain’t intuitive." > — Hogstrom > >> On Jun 4, 2022, at 9:07 PM, CM Poncelet >> <03e99a92061c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: >> >> FWIW I thought IBM had acquired BMC and its FileAid etc. But I seem to >> be mistaken. >> >> On the other hand, has or not IBM acquired Candle and its Omegamon? (I >> worked with IBM and Candle in the early 90's.) TIA. >> >> >> >> On 04/06/2022 03:14, Bill Johnson wrote: >>> That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out. >>> >>> >>> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >>> >>> >>> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave >>> <03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: >>> >>> I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" >>> is not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds >>> >>> >> -- >> 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 > . > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
> On the other hand, has or not IBM acquired Candle and its Omegamon? (I > worked with IBM and Candle in the early 90's.) TIA. > IBM acquired OMEGAMON several years ago and has since sold it to partners who now OEM it. Rocket Software develops the OMEGAMON suite now. Matt Hogstrom m...@hogstrom.org “It may be cognitive, but, it ain’t intuitive." — Hogstrom > On Jun 4, 2022, at 9:07 PM, CM Poncelet > <03e99a92061c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > FWIW I thought IBM had acquired BMC and its FileAid etc. But I seem to > be mistaken. > > On the other hand, has or not IBM acquired Candle and its Omegamon? (I > worked with IBM and Candle in the early 90's.) TIA. > > > > On 04/06/2022 03:14, Bill Johnson wrote: >> That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out. >> >> >> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone >> >> >> On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave >> <03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: >> >> I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is >> not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds >> >> > > -- > 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
They got Candle, years and years ago, and have largely now farmed most of it out to Rocket. Doug -- Original Message -- From: "CM Poncelet" <03e99a92061c-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu Sent: 04-Jun-22 21:07:28 Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC FWIW I thought IBM had acquired BMC and its FileAid etc. But I seem to be mistaken. On the other hand, has or not IBM acquired Candle and its Omegamon? (I worked with IBM and Candle in the early 90's.) TIA. On 04/06/2022 03:14, Bill Johnson wrote: That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave <03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
FWIW I thought IBM had acquired BMC and its FileAid etc. But I seem to be mistaken. On the other hand, has or not IBM acquired Candle and its Omegamon? (I worked with IBM and Candle in the early 90's.) TIA. On 04/06/2022 03:14, Bill Johnson wrote: > That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave > <03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is > not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds > > -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I love when people on this list think they’re know it alls and post something so stupid it’s comical. I don’t know how you came up with such asinine bullshit, but it’s impressive.***IBM’s ROE over the years has actually been decent. 25% trailing 12 months. I suspect ROE is above most of your heads. The fact that you only present the stock price as proof of inferior returns is hilarious. As for those growth stocks, most have zero earnings, pay no dividend, and only survived based upon free money, zero interest rate policy. A couple of young bloods here were touting Fintech a few months back. I wonder what they think today? I’ve traded IBM stock around earnings but never owned it. Fintech and most high flying stocks trading on a multiple of sales have gotten crushed this year.***This is often the problem here. People unable to understand even simple analysis. I never once said the article was full of inaccuracies. The headline was correct and so was the article itself. Although the headline was designed to get you to click. Sensationalized and just enough information but not too much.***I’m nearly certain it will be overturned. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits companies from colluding to restrict competition in order to fix prices/profits. Also the federal court decision was in the southern district court of Texas, where BMC is headquartered. (Houston) Often a judge/court will rule with the hometown company. I’ve seen it before.I also never said I was a cop. Although early on, I thought I wanted to be an FBI agent. I was in LE in college. Got a minor in it. Bachelor of Science, majoring in Comp Sci & Math. Been in IT for 40. In many capacities & 15 or so companies & consulting. Not from Timbuktu University either. And not a 2 year Tech degree for those who couldn’t hack a Bachelors degree. But, 20 years ago I thought maybe I’d give law a try. Took the LSAT, (law school admissions test) scored extremely well, and subsequently received dozens of offers from law schools all over the country. So, I think my law knowledge is a tad more than a layman's.I don’t worship IBM. Actually, I don’t worship anyone or anything. But, the fact is, they process the majority of important transactions to this day. Not many tech companies have been around for 111 years & still going strong. You can tout Azure or AWS or whatever platform you like. My photos are on AWS. So I don’t care if it goes down twice a month. My financial & health records however are a tad more important & can’t be down. And aren’t, because they’re on a Z. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Saturday, June 4, 2022, 4:30 PM, Gabe Goldberg wrote: I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer over decades. Bill, are you familiar withhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will decide. You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study to be a lawyer? Seriously? You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than credible. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets > scheduled, might be a while,
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I don't have a dog in this ridiculous fight -- though I've also lived a career based on IBM mainframes, including working for IBM. I long ago sold my shares because the company was sadly heading downhill. But I'll chime in anyway. I was apparently correct because IBM shares are now at about the price where I sold, while other tech companies and the broader markets have increased greatly. I'm no more an IBM hater than zMan, just also an experienced observer over decades. Bill, are you familiar withhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect which you've greatly demonstrated? I doubt that everyone on the list would have clicked the link zMan supplied but I'm sure that after your tediously arguing with the article, everyone has clicked just to see what it's about. So if it's misinformation, you've greatly increased its distribution. Asserting infallibility in predicting outcome of litigation is silly. First, you don't have all the facts. Second, you're not qualified on the law. Third, you don't know what arguments will be made on the appeal necessary because the case has been decided. Fourth, you don't know whether the appeal will be accepted. Fifth, if it's accepted, you don't know what appeal judges will decide. You emphasize your qualifications to pontificate on esoteric legal matters because 30 years ago you were a cop and back then you were qualified to study to be a lawyer? Seriously? You accuse others of being IBM haters, while you're quite the IBM worshiper. I don't see questioning or criticizing IBM as "hating", but your reflexive defense of IBM on matters small and large really does come across as worship. Ceaselessly arguing that IBM can do no wrong makes your opinions less than credible. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out. No matter what the judge said. I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number of law schools nationwide. -- Gabriel Goldberg, Computers and Publishing, inc.g...@gabegold.com 3401 Silver Maple Place, Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 204-0433 LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/gabegold Twitter: GabeG0 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Which is no more than what Tony said. Sounds like you two are in violent agreement. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:15 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave < > 03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" > is not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 7:04 PM > > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > > Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC > > > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize > > the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson > > <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating > IBM will > > now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline > > states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. > > > > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard > > wrote: > > > > Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc, > > right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please. > > With quote. > > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered > it. > > > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they > don’t pay > > > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 > days, > > > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the > > appeals > > > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets > > > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or > > uphold > > > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can > > > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the > > appeals > > > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays > out. > > > No matter what the judge said. > > > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years > ago. > > > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a > number > > > of law schools nationwide. > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges > > > wrote: > > > > > > Well, look at the history (I saved it below): > > > > > > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will > now > > > hand over 1.6 billion]... > > > > > > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to > BMC". > > > > > > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that > IBM > > > will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were > > > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between > the > > > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, > > > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He > was > > > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. > > > > > > The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought > > > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one > > > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope > toward a > > > flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. > > > > > > --- > > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > > > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. > > > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. > > > -Churchill */ > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: IBM Mainfra
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
That’s exactly what I’m saying. Until the appeals process plays out. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:12 PM, Gibney, Dave <03b5261cfd78-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 7:04 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize > the sender and know the content is safe. > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson > <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > > will > now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline > states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. > > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard > wrote: > > Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc, > right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please. > With quote. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. > > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay > > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, > > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the > appeals > > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets > > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or > uphold > > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can > > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the > appeals > > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out. > > No matter what the judge said. > > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. > > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number > > of law schools nationwide. > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges > > wrote: > > > > Well, look at the history (I saved it below): > > > > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now > > hand over 1.6 billion]... > > > > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > > > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM > > will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were > > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the > > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, > > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He was > > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. > > > > The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought > > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one > > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a > > flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. > > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. > > -Churchill */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09 > > > > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. > > > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges > > > wrote: > > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind > > explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll > > leave it. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 > > > > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. > > > > --- O
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 9:06 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote, in reply to my request for a citation that shows Tony Harminc thinks that IBM *will* hand over $1.6e+09: > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson > <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating > IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, > the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. > > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > That's what I thought. What I don't understand is how you can read more into that statement than that IBM was *ordered* to pay. In particular, that statement says exactly zero about IBM's intentions, and does not assume that the order is the last word - which, sa you have repeatedly pointed out, it is not. -- Jay Maynard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I hate to chime in here, but I believe you both are saying that "ordered" is not equivalent to the act of actually distributing the funds > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2022 7:04 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC > > [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize > the sender and know the content is safe. > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson > <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > > will > now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline > states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. > > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard > wrote: > > Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc, > right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please. > With quote. > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. > > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay > > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, > > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the > appeals > > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets > > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or > uphold > > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can > > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the > appeals > > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out. > > No matter what the judge said. > > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. > > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number > > of law schools nationwide. > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges > > wrote: > > > > Well, look at the history (I saved it below): > > > > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now > > hand over 1.6 billion]... > > > > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > > > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM > > will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were > > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the > > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, > > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He was > > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. > > > > The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought > > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one > > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a > > flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > > > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. > > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. > > -Churchill */ > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09 > > > > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. > > > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges > > > wrote: > > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind > > explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll > > leave it. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On > Behalf > > Of Bill Johnson > > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 > > > > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. > > > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc > > wrote: > > Do you not understand how to read? > > > > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson < > > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@lists
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:58 PM, Jay Maynard wrote: Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc, right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please. With quote. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out. > No matter what the judge said. > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number > of law schools nationwide. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > > Well, look at the history (I saved it below): > > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now > hand over 1.6 billion]... > > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM > will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He was > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. > > The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a > flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. > -Churchill */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09 > > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind > explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll > leave it. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 > > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc > wrote: > Do you not understand how to read? > > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not > understand how courts work? > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc > wrote: > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating > IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, > the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. > > -- > 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 > -- Jay Maynard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Uhm, Bill...where, exactly, did Tony (I assume you mean Tony Harminc, right?) say that IBM was going to hand over $1.6e+09? Citation, please. With quote. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 8:54 PM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. > In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay > anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, > with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals > court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets > scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold > the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can > appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals > play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out. > No matter what the judge said. > I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. > Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number > of law schools nationwide. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > > Well, look at the history (I saved it below): > > You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now > hand over 1.6 billion]... > > Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM > will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were > conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the > judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, > correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He was > picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. > > The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought > Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one > part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a > flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. > > --- > Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 > > /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. > The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. > -Churchill */ > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09 > > Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges > wrote: > No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind > explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll > leave it. > > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf > Of Bill Johnson > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 > > I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc > wrote: > Do you not understand how to read? > > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not > understand how courts work? > > --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc > wrote: > Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". > > --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson < > 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating > IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, > the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. > > -- > 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 > -- Jay Maynard -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Tony thinks IBM is handing over 1.6 billion. Because the judge ordered it. In the article it states IBM is going to appeal. Which means they don’t pay anything, yet. Once they file a Notice of Appeal, usually within 30 days, with documentation of why they think the trial judge was wrong, the appeals court will decide whether the case gets heard. (Very likely) It gets scheduled, might be a while, and the appeals court might overturn or uphold the judgment. If upheld, IBM can appeal further. If overturned, BMC can appeal. Meanwhile, BMC & IBM can negotiate a settlement while the appeals play out. It could take years. No money changes hands while it plays out. No matter what the judge said. I was in law enforcement and was going to be a lawyer about 20 years ago. Took the LSAT, passed with flying colors and was offered seats at a number of law schools nationwide. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 9:34 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: Well, look at the history (I saved it below): You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion]... Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He was picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -Churchill */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09 Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll leave it. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Do you not understand how to read? --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand > how courts work? --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Well, look at the history (I saved it below): You: the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that [IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion]... Tony: ...no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". You said (among other things) that the articles headline states that IBM will now hand over the fine. I don't think you meant that, you were conflating the headline with the article, while distinguishing between the judgement against IBM and IBM's putative obedience. Tony pointed out, correctly, that the headline did not after all say exactly that. He was picking out just that one part of your words, not the whole thing. The discussion kind of went south from there. I'm guessing you thought Tony was disagreeing with the entirety of your post, not just that one part, and the two of you started sliding down the slippery slope toward a flame war. As usual, it isn't necessary. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery. -Churchill */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 20:09 Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll leave it. -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Do you not understand how to read? --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand > how courts work? --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Explain it to me Bob. I gotta hear this. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 8:02 PM, Bob Bridges wrote: No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll leave it. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The cities are for money but the high-up hills are purely for the soul. -from _Galloway_ by Louis L'Amour */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Do you not understand how to read? --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand > how courts work? --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
No, Bill, you don't, or at least you didn't in this case. I don’t mind explaining it to you, if you really missed it. If you don't care, I'll leave it. --- Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313 /* The cities are for money but the high-up hills are purely for the soul. -from _Galloway_ by Louis L'Amour */ -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of Bill Johnson Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 19:03 I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Do you not understand how to read? --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand > how courts work? --- On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". --- On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I read just fine. There’s more than just the headline. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 6:58 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand > how courts work? Do you not understand how to read? Tony H. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 17:11, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand > how courts work? Do you not understand how to read? Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
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 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 > > I *thought* I read that AT'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: I tend to doubt that AT > 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 > 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 > 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
And they’re appealing. So no payment will be made yet. Do you not understand how courts work? Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 5:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". Tony H. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 15:49, Bill Johnson <0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > > Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM > will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the > headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. Uh, no. The subject line is exactly "IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC". Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Saying it will or won’t be overturned is just as silly as insinuating IBM will now hand over 1.6 billion at this stage of the proceedings. Yet, the headline states and the OP assumes exactly that. Gleefully I might add. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 3:09 PM, Tony Harminc wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills 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 Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience" doesn't make us lawyers or even experts. Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be overturned is just silly. Tony H. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
My brother is a computer forensic consultant for a law firm, and he mines and compares source code for a living. He maintains it's (mostly) not a matter of proving who is right and wrong, but which legal team makes a mistake. David -Original Message- From: Tony Harminc To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Sent: Fri, Jun 3, 2022 3:09 pm Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills 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 Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience" doesn't make us lawyers or even experts. Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be overturned is just silly. Tony H. -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 14:16, Charles Mills 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 Indeed. Anyone who has ever seen a program written by a lawyer may appreciate this. I have seen a few (mostly but not entirely spreadsheets), and it just reinforces my thinking that lawyers live in a "differently logical" world from the rest of us. Many of us here have all kinds of experience dealing with lawyers and contracts (to say nothing of personal matters), but that kind of "legal experience" doesn't make us lawyers or even experts. Looked at another way, "legal reasoning" is a law school topic of instruction and study, and is generally the thing that we programmers take to because it most closely resembles programming, and we like to think that the law is algorithmic in nature. But legal reasoning is very far from being "the law", and is actually quite a small part of the education of a lawyer. Applying it other people's cases to conclude that this or that judgement is correct or will obviously be overturned is just silly. Tony H. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
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 I *thought* I read that AT'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: I tend to doubt that AT 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 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 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
LOLOLOLOL yeah, you’re a critical thinking master. Anyone with Legal experience (me) knows this will be overturned. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 12:59 PM, zMan wrote: 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: I tend to doubt that AT 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 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 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
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: I tend to doubt that AT 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 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 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Exactly. I’m way more concerned with the collusion of 2 software vendors agreeing not to cannibalize the others business. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 12:12 PM, Charles Mills wrote: I am not taking pro- or "bashing" sides here. How can any outsourcer agree not to replace product family X with product family Y, and then agree to run a datacenter the way a customer wants? IBM apparently promised BMC they would not unhook their products, and then promised AT to do what they wanted ... and apparently what they wanted was to unhook BMC products. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 7:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/ Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
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. On 6/3/2022 9:13 AM, Charles Mills wrote: I am not taking pro- or "bashing" sides here. -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I am not taking pro- or "bashing" sides here. How can any outsourcer agree not to replace product family X with product family Y, and then agree to run a datacenter the way a customer wants? IBM apparently promised BMC they would not unhook their products, and then promised AT to do what they wanted ... and apparently what they wanted was to unhook BMC products. Charles -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of zMan Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 7:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/ Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
It’s collusion & illegal. Collusion is a non-competitive, secret, and sometimes illegal agreement between rivals which attempts to disrupt the market's equilibrium. He always bashes IBM. It’s his MO. IBM will win on appeal. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 11:10 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote: No, you don't know his agenda. While I expect this to be overturned on appeal, he is correct that AT is not a party to the suit, although I wouldn't be surprised if they filed a friend off the court brief. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC It’s AT’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan wrote: Um. AT's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to this. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT > > IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling. > > "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to > pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM > acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to > remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT, > as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT > representatives admitted at trial." ® > > It’ll be reversed. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan wrote: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xJhnZCNeW7_rNin7h4BrhTJh2FKKfaVZoJRtvyBUBiorGShjv3uXoDQVoj41wa3xbw9Du5kLyl_Z3H3CSox90qbGwoIudpZ9NwBtsj0xdkoDwvmWOquUzQkeFu0AfjrJ2a_9BgRpXLwr3VwahvERxN-Sigw6qYPotjrQB1e8apAXdF06ZWmt8Utbx-iG-DexdrckZDein6ub17mp1YDhbqO1SAqXIcnFIEi7D3teVf_BD08Z0ExjAKiuqRgKYRVThnXwEQGOFJ9UgZ9Tb_YaOrL2oXOs1ZrptDwMQlr-VG6JvZbNDruBTpXDD3UzLKzQm4TAb1zyCIJUTC98FZWNgnXqsJJ6D2CZC_AYuRh0HTFU0oSyWJBlzBvExCGziJFd5zJBgqxEgiADr10VcdQ6ekazrWhbLwueSB365b0dFRBk0WCNaG1ot_3VIgEOCOog/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.com%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2Fibm_ordered_to_pay_16%2F > > Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > -- > 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 > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- 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 -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
No, you don't know his agenda. While I expect this to be overturned on appeal, he is correct that AT is not a party to the suit, although I wouldn't be surprised if they filed a friend off the court brief. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of Bill Johnson [0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu] Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 11:06 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC It’s AT’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan wrote: Um. AT's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to this. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT > > IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling. > > "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to > pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM > acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to > remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT, > as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT > representatives admitted at trial." ® > > It’ll be reversed. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan wrote: > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1xJhnZCNeW7_rNin7h4BrhTJh2FKKfaVZoJRtvyBUBiorGShjv3uXoDQVoj41wa3xbw9Du5kLyl_Z3H3CSox90qbGwoIudpZ9NwBtsj0xdkoDwvmWOquUzQkeFu0AfjrJ2a_9BgRpXLwr3VwahvERxN-Sigw6qYPotjrQB1e8apAXdF06ZWmt8Utbx-iG-DexdrckZDein6ub17mp1YDhbqO1SAqXIcnFIEi7D3teVf_BD08Z0ExjAKiuqRgKYRVThnXwEQGOFJ9UgZ9Tb_YaOrL2oXOs1ZrptDwMQlr-VG6JvZbNDruBTpXDD3UzLKzQm4TAb1zyCIJUTC98FZWNgnXqsJJ6D2CZC_AYuRh0HTFU0oSyWJBlzBvExCGziJFd5zJBgqxEgiADr10VcdQ6ekazrWhbLwueSB365b0dFRBk0WCNaG1ot_3VIgEOCOog/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theregister.com%2F2022%2F05%2F31%2Fibm_ordered_to_pay_16%2F > > Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > -- > 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 > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- 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 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
It’s AT’s shop. They decided they wanted IBM’s products instead of BMC. Imagine your shop with multiple vendors where the vendors decide not to replace each others software. THATS illegal. Restraint of trade. I guarantee it’ll be overturned. But, we know your agenda. You’re an IBM hater. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:55 AM, zMan wrote: Um. AT's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to this. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT > > IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling. > > "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to > pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM > acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to > remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT, > as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT > representatives admitted at trial." ® > > It’ll be reversed. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan wrote: > > https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/ > > Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > -- > 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 > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- 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
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
Um. AT's approval or otherwise isn't relevant. They're not a party to this. On Fri, Jun 3, 2022 at 10:41 AM Bill Johnson < 0047540adefe-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote: > I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT > > IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling. > > "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to > pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM > acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to > remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT, > as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT > representatives admitted at trial." ® > > It’ll be reversed. > > > Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone > > > On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan wrote: > > https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/ > > Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. > -- > zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" > > -- > 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 > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
Re: IBM ordered to pay $1.6b to BMC
I doubt IBM acted without the approval of AT IBM rejected the decision and said it intends to appeal the ruling. "This verdict is entirely unsupported by fact and law, and IBM intends to pursue complete reversal on appeal," IBM said in an emailed statement. "IBM acted in good faith in every respect in this engagement. The decision to remove BMC Software technology from its mainframes rested solely with AT, as was recognized by the court and confirmed in testimony from AT representatives admitted at trial." ® It’ll be reversed. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone On Friday, June 3, 2022, 10:37 AM, zMan wrote: https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/31/ibm_ordered_to_pay_16/ Tsk. IBM appears to have been caught red-handed here. -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it" -- 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
