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

somitcw wrote:

> If the patent says that one instruction must be
> able to move both to the same or to different,
> Hercules does not qualify.  Hercules just cannot
> move to different.

The rule of law for determining equivalency as laid down by the Supreme
Court is quite simple: "If two devices do the same
work in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the
same result, they are the same, even though they differ in
name, form, or shape."  Webbing around one finds:

"show infringement according to the "means-plus-function" test.
Under this type of analysis, infringement would be found if the emulator
performed an identical,
important function of the hardware, and performed that function using
either the structure disclosed in
patent specification or an equivalent structure.  This test favors the
hardware manufacturers because
the courts have found that interchangeability is evidence of equivalency
in a patent infringement case.
Since the emulators and the hardware run the same [software],
interchangeability would not be a difficult
issue [] to prove."

> With my unique logic, please ask me if I can
> legally run Linux, Hercules, and OS/390 on my 9672.
> How about IMS, CICS, ISPF, SDSF, etc.
> Or ask me about zSIE.

Actually, what would be interesting is for you to ask IBM if you can run
Hercules on your 9672.
If they held some complaint regarding Herc and IP, then there might be
objections where ever it
was run.

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/