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

--- In hercules-advocacy-F5Bj5G+ccuY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Peter D. Ward"  wrote:
   > 
   > 
   > 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.
   >

Nice links.
Let me start with that I do not believe that my opinion is really
relevant in this matter, but
I do not think that either of them apply for a number of reasons, the
first patent you quoted
is named "Process using virtual addressing in a non-privileged
instruction to control the copying of a page of data in or between
multiple media",
our mvpg implementation does not have multiple storage media
The second patent you quote is named "Virtual machine system with
guest architecture emulation using hardware TLB's for plural level
address translations"
Again, the description does not even remotely match what we are doing,
further, reading this document, this is not even how we have
implemented address translation.

As you seem to like discussions: How about  Principles of Operation is
an interface description,and an instruction description like MVC no
different than the interface discription of a memcpy() function. 
Just as I can write my own memcpy() function, I can write my own MVC.

Do you see a difference between running hercules on a, say 2064, and
hercules running an say a DEC Alpha ?


   > 
   > 
   > > 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!
   >

I do not know the internal politics well enough to even speculate on
the matter.  I have not yet seen that IBM does not license hercules,
all I have seen is no action to build a standard license 
arrangement.

   > 
   > >
   > >
   > > 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.
   >

I am not an expert either, software sales would be happy with a group
80 license.

   > 
   > > 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.
   >

We will see, I guess

   > 
   > > 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".

That sentence is rather bad english, I agree.



   > 
   > 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"?
   >

Source code in a  non licenced manual is what I would call publicly
available. ie no license.

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

All fields in the z/SIE block are documented in HCPSI2BK COPY macro,
hercules not not contain information beyond that.
All other information is in the manuals that I listed previously.

   > 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?
   >

It is a self documenting copybook.

   > 
   > > 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.
   >

If an owner would raise an issue it would need to be discussed. It
will then depend on the outcome of such a discussion if it is an issue
or not.

   > 
   > > 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.
   >

Or perhaps not

   > > 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?
   >

Yes

   > 
   > 
   > > 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?
   >

Yes

   > 
   > >
   > > 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.
   >

You appear to have your own agenda here, which it seems you want to
keep to yourself don't you?



   > > 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??????
   >

Your version is less public (requires vm license, mine is more public
(ino vm license)



   > > 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?
   >

I seem to remember you stating that you do not need additional (ie
proprietary) information from IBM to build your product, what makes
you think that we would be in a different position?

Jan





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/jd3IAA/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/