Re: Re: Peter still in misery (was: Jan doesn't want Peter to know (was: Peter wants

pa3efu wrote:

> You seem to handle double standards here.  You always raise the
> issue of patents.
> You have been asked to name the patents that you have licensed as
> you claim the
> same would apply to hercules.

Actually, I do not recall being asked to name a specific patent as an
example, and no double standard is intended.  (I think someone did ask
Phil Payne to name one)   In response to your 2nd statement above, I
have no specific numbers to offer as our licenses are not set up that
way.

I'd be interested to hear if, in your opinion, a Move Page patent might
possibily apply to Hercules.  One relevant to that can be seen at
www.uspto.gov, clicking on "patent" and then "basic search", and
searching on number 5237668, the result of which is linked at :

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=7&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ft95&s1=5,237,668&OS=5,237,668&RS=5,237,668

(sorry if you need to cut and paste)

I'd also be interested to hear if in your opinion on whether or not a
basic SIE patent, like 4456954, might be applicable if it were still
within the statutory period.



> So far you have never ever reponded,
> yet when you
> ask a question, and you do not like the aswer you reply with lines
> along the
> quoted lines above.

I believe if you look back you'll note that what I am doing in those
instances is gently calling-out a non-substantive reply of yours to a
substantive question..  There is nothing I can do if you choose to taunt
me except to point out that such responses are a non-substantive reply
to what I believed to be a legitimate factually-based question.

> pdw> I can't tell from your comment which faction, IBM hardware or
> software,
> pdw> you are asserting is fond of Hercules. Is it your estimation
> that the
> pdw> software people, the ones that refuse to commercially license
> their
> pdw> product to Hercules, the ones that refuse to allow developers
> to use their
> pdw> software on Hercules, are the fond ones, or perhaps you mean
> its the
> pdw> hardware folks?

Here your answer wasn't simply non-substantive, it was absent
all-together!


>
>
> pdw> So are you saying IBM presently generally licenses its software
> stack for
> pdw> use on Hercules? Can you share a phone number that one can call
> to get a
> pdw> commecial or developer license to IBM software for use on
> Hercules? Or
> pdw> are you saying that IBM will do so once someone starts some
> administrative
> pdw> or legal action against their present position?
> pdw> hardware folks?
>
> As far as I know, in the worst case hercules would fall into the
> highest
> processor group, as it is undefined. (We have discussed this before)
>

I do not believe that you are correct.   The worst case, without saying
it IS the case,  is that IBM decides it has sufficient cause to not
license anything on Hercules at all.  In other words, if they felt
harmed in some way, they wouldn't likely
feel any obligation (nor would they likely be forced) to license to a
machine that engendered the harm.   I don't believe one can get even a
Group 80 license as a matter of right.


> It would be nice to see IBM provide a hobbyist license

If they can be convinced it is in their interest to do so, then I would
expect them to do so.


> pdw> Its not a matter of my liking, its a matter of what is true. Do
> you
> pdw> consider modern VM source code "public accessible information"?
>
> It is not the document I have here (which does not require a vm
> license),
> but the source you mention does seem to appear your description of
> publically available.

I don't quite get what you are saying here by "does seem to appear".

Can we try this again ---
You said "All hercules source code is currently derived from
public accessible information.", and I asked:  Do you consider modern VM
source
code (eg, z/VM source code)  "public accessible information"?



> fwiw, the sie block has been documented in
> the
> source you mention for 2 decades.

PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT,  I've been asking after the z/SIE block
documentation, NOT the
plain-old SIE block which you appear to be talking about.  What
"publically accessible information" source
are you saying I'm mentioning for z/SIE block?


> pdw> Do you have a position on whether or not Hercules development
> even has to
> pdw> be concerned about patent claims?
>
> Not unless a patent owner raises the issue.

I could have been more clear.  I was wondering if  you held some
reasoning for why
patents might not be an issue even if a patent owner raises a claim.


> As I found out recently, I might have been violating IBM patents
> when I was
> waiting for a lavatory that was in use.  I have never seen people on
> an airoplane
> calling the ibm director of licensing making sure that were lining
> up in a way
> that ibm concurred with, have you?

That was a "lu-lu" of a patent. (excuse the Brit pun on loo!)

There's a patent whose claims I would certainly fight!  The ones I
mentioned further above
are perhaps more deserving of your consideration.

> pdw> I'm not sure we are. Do you consider documents associated with
> pdw> early release or developer's programs "regular channels"?
>
> no, unless it is published open source

Then what do  you mean by "regular channels"? -- I had suggested a
definition for a "publically available source" from IBM as one orderable
via IBM Link and receiveable without the requirement to have executed a
license.  Does your source for documentation of the z/SIE block fit that
definition?



> pdw> Did you mention that document when you posted your list of
> documents
> pdw> which purported to prove z/SIE was publically documented?
>
> no, it is the "Where Jan get the z/SIE block" document

Do you think you will ever provide a document citation?


>
> pdw> What point are you trying to make in the immediately above
> exchange?
>
> The point that I am trying to make is that your behaviour, both in
> the
> past and at present, has the potential to backfire on yourself and
> the
> company you work for.  I do not think I need to say more.
>

Your statement that I was asking about was "I can well understand that
you want to keep these
sensitive matters within your own hands."  Not only do I not understand
what that means in this
context, but I also don't understand how it is applicable to your answer
above.

> First, you claim that the sie block is undisclosed and somehow
> leaked to
> hercules developers.

I never said that.  See my remarks a few replies above this for what I
was asking after.  I believe also
you can read back at my posts and see I've simply been asking for a
citation to documentation
for the z/SIE block (not the SIE block), something which for whatever
reason you claim exists but
refuse to supply.


> Now you quote a more or less public source of the sie block, one
> that is
> 20 years old and which has always been kept up to date.
> (64 bit updates within the past couple of years)
>
> I do not buy this contradiction,

Is there some confusion here?  What "more or less public source" of the
z/sie block documentation am I quoting??????

> You are either spreading fud, or you are have inside knowledge of
> people
> that are purposely misusing confidential information as discussed in
> previous post.  I do not believe it is nessecary to go into that
> right now, do you?

Jan, there must be some misunderstanding.   I have absolutely no idea
what you are talking about here.
Is there something I can explain which will clear matters up better?

Peter


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/JjlUgA/vN2EAA/kG8FAA/dpFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
hercules-advocacy-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/