posted to Linux-390... patents again!

Nov 21, 2001

I've posted this where it belongs - Hercules Advocacy - but I feel
it's sufficiently nasty to bring it to the attention of the larger
Herc community by posting here. PLEASE only follow-up on Hercules
Advocacy - any large-scale discussion will be off-topic for the main
group.

Phil Payne posted this to Linux-390... the topic was... Phil's one and
only topic! :-) (we were throwing rocks at each other).

(FX: thunder rolls, lightning flashes across the desolate heath)

I got this in the same run:

"I had to send this off list because of how I know it. Just don't
quote me on
it. The problem is that some of the more complex s/390 instructions
are covered
by patents. Amdahl and Flex have paid royalties just to be able emulate
those instructions. It is mainly a couple of very powerful
instructions. The
Herc people have thumbed their noses at IBM when IBM first informed them
that they were violating patents. Everyone in the USA (and some other
countries) who is RUNNING Herc is violating the law. IBM made a big
mistake
with the one PID user that has gotten approval to use Herc for his
development. They did not really know what Herc was at the time. They will
NEVER repeat that mistake as it can effect any legal issues. FWIW,
that one
guy only has a limited time licensee (all PIDs have to renew) and when it
expires, it won't happen again."

I know the author by reputation. I expect IBM to issue a 'cease and
desist'
sometime around the end of 1Q02.

--
Phil Payne
The Devil's IT Dictionary - last updated 01/11/20:
http://www.isham-research.com/dd.html

Anyone care to comment? Have ANY 'Herc people' ever been 'informed by
IBM' that they were violating patents? Anyone care to comment on how
much shit IBM could find themselves in if they revoke, or fail to
renew, someones PID for no cause (since presumably nothing has changed
since they granted the PID), presumably causing considerable
difficulties for their business? Anyone care to comment otherwise on
this pile of stinking FUD?

Mike, packing for vacation

9:45 pm

Re: posted to Linux-390... patents again!

Jay Maynard

Nov 22, 2001

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 09:45:50PM -0000, abaddon@... quoted Phil
Payne:
> The Herc people have thumbed their noses at IBM when IBM first informed
> them that they were violating patents.

...followed by more of the same old stuff.

For the record: NO, NO, GODDAMMIT, NO!!! IBM HAS *NEVER* INFORMED *ANY*
HERCULES DEVELOPER OF *ANY* ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT!

...and the proper place to discuss this is on hercules-advocacy; I posted to
hercules-390 only in order to get this statement on the record.

12:42 am

Re: posted to Linux-390... patents again!

phil@...

Nov 22, 2001

> For the record: NO, NO, GODDAMMIT, NO!!! IBM HAS *NEVER* INFORMED
*ANY*
> HERCULES DEVELOPER OF *ANY* ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT!

I very much regret that this has reappeared here. I have no
intention of revisiting old ground.

The material posted is taken out of context - the archive of the
Linux/390 mailing list contains the entire discussion, at the head of
which I make precisely the point that IBM has not made any statement
of this type.

In an extremely offensive post I was challenged on two points:

a) No one has ever considered using Hercules for production.

I posted an item from earlier this year on this list in response.

b) No one else on the planet shares my views.

I posted the item you have just seen, which came in the same day's
email. I could have picked a post from the IBM-MAIN mailing list on
the same day in which someone else made a similar point.

Both were intended illustratively - neither represents my own
position.

I do not know why this has been brought back here in this manner.

Neither the discussion on the Linux/390 group nor this discussion
were started by myself. I am not going to continue this one.

7:29 am

Re: posted to Linux-390... patents again!

"ntlworld" <carolyn.ashley-wheeler@...>

Nov 22, 2001

I don't normally get involved in this type of thread but I thought it might
be of interest. IBM has
given my company permission to run OS/390 2.10 ( our current version) on
Hercules using a complete copy of our production system ( roughly 60+
3390-3's not including data ) with the proviso that we don't use it for any
production work. It's intended use is as an operator training platform. It
took a while to get an answer out of them but when we did they didn't seem
to be particularly bothered about it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Maynard" <jmaynard@...>
To: <hercules-advocacy@yahoogroups.com>; <hercules-390@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 22 November 2001 00:42
Subject: Re: [hercules-390] posted to Linux-390... patents again!

> On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 09:45:50PM -0000, abaddon@... quoted
Phil
> Payne:
> > The Herc people have thumbed their noses at IBM when IBM first informed
> > them that they were violating patents.
>
> ...followed by more of the same old stuff.
>
> For the record: NO, NO, GODDAMMIT, NO!!! IBM HAS *NEVER* INFORMED *ANY*
> HERCULES DEVELOPER OF *ANY* ALLEGATIONS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT!
>
> ...and the proper place to discuss this is on hercules-advocacy; I posted
to
> hercules-390 only in order to get this statement on the record.
>
>
> Community email addresses:
> Post message: hercules-390@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: hercules-390-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: hercules-390-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: hercules-390-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Files and archives at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hercules-390
>
> Get the latest version of Hercules from:
> http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

7:19 pm

Re: posted to Linux-390... patents again!

phil@...

Nov 23, 2001

--- In hercules-390@y..., "ntlworld" <carolyn.ashley-wheeler@n...>
wrote:
> I don't normally get involved in this type of thread but I thought
it might
> be of interest. IBM has
> given my company permission to run OS/390 2.10 ( our current
version) on
> Hercules using a complete copy of our production system ( roughly
60+
> 3390-3's not including data ) with the proviso that we don't use it
for any
> production work. It's intended use is as an operator training
platform. It
> took a while to get an answer out of them but when we did they
didn't seem
> to be particularly bothered about it.

If thi sis in writing and in a form you can share, I'd be delighted
to see it.

6:26 am