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

pa3efu wrote:

> Yes I did read the entire docoument,
> and it is all about the hardware implementation, not about
> the actual (user) interface. I do not think it applies.

Are you saying that  in your opinion software emulation of any hardware
implementation cannot violate a patent on the implementation?   Are you
also suggesting that interfaces cannot be patented?

> In fact I do not quite understand this sudden change in topic,
> you were interested in the source of the z/sie block, which,
> if you are still interested, can find on the regular ibm
> website, under cp data areas, SI2BK.HTML is there the 64 bit
> copy of SIE, with a nice description of every single field.

I hadn't meant it as a change in subject.   To me the conversation has
been about what basis might there be for an emulation of hardware to be
subject to the IP claims of the hardware producer.   The areas of that
inquiry involve Patents and Trade Secrets.  Trade secret inquiry would
entail questioning the use of licensed or otherwise protected
materials.  Modern SIE block info had traditionally be protected by
license terms which stated their restricted nature, such as this section
from VM macros:

Descriptive Name - SIE State Description (format 2)       *
00007 *                                                           *
00008 * Copyright -                                               *
00009 *                                                           *
00010 *   THIS MODULE IS "RESTRICTED MATERIALS OF IBM"            *
00011 *   5739-A03 (C) COPYRIGHT IBM CORP. - 2001, 2002           *
00012 *   LICENSED MATERIALS - PROPERTY OF IBM                    *
00013 *   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

>From what you've pointed out, this restriction seems no longer relevant
to the discussion of IP claims as you've identified an alternative
source that apparently comes without restriction.   It would be
interesting to learn if IBM really intended such a disclosure but that
is only of academic consideration.  Good Find!

> However, I find it still 'strange' that you keep on insisting
> that the hercules developers would need extra documentation,
> above what is generally available, whereas yourself stated
> that fsi does not need any special documentation to build
> your product.

You may notice that the date of the email included in my response to
Roger was Jan 17, 2000, and the
statement about no need for  access to restricted materials was true at
that time.    I do not presently believe that one can make a fully
capable z/architected emulated solution in a reasonable time frame
without access to restricted materials.   For instance, how can one tell
if Hercules will run a parallel sysplex under VM without violating a
license on the accessing of the CFCC?  (Have you ever tested with CFCC,
and if so, how did you get around the licensing terms?)

> The only conclusion that I can draw from this discussion is
> that everything Roger stated, how unfortunate it may be,
> is still the case today.

That would be an incorrect conclusion, because for reasons stated above,
I do not believe its "we can"/ "you can't", but rather that neither can
(in a reasonable time frame).

> Well, you now know where to find the z/sie block doc, so that
> pretty much ends this discussion

If the discussion is about whether or not patents and trade secrets
apply in the making of an effort like Herc or Flex, then
there are still questions.   Our tact was to avoid the concern by
licensing.  The road you've taken leaves open trade secret questions
such as:

1)  In developing Herc, has a developer ever consulted licensed source
code to benefit the internals of Herc?
2)  In developing Herc, has a developer ever consulted accessed licensed
internal code to the benefit of Herc testing and development?
3)   In developing Herc, has a developer ever received the benefit of
licensed materials as passed on from others?
4)   In developing Herc, has a developer ever benefited from testing
running licensed OS's on unlicensed platforms?

Patents are the other issue, but the questions at the top of this note
will shed some light on whether or not you believe those can ever be
relevant to Hercules.

PDW


[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/