IBM Faces DOJ Antitrust Inquiry On Mainframes 190
Several sources are reporting that IBM is facing an antitrust inquiry from the US Department of Justice due to a supposed refusal to issue mainframe OS licenses to competitors. "Part of CCIA's complaint stems from the tech giant's treatment of former competitor Platform Solutions. IBM had little competition in the mainframe market when Platform Solutions, early this decade, began work on servers that could mimic the behavior of more expensive IBM mainframes, CCIA said. Platform Solutions, based on past mainframe agreements between IBM and the DOJ, requested copies of IBM's OS and technical information under a licensing agreement. IBM declined to grant Platform Solutions a license and prohibited customers from transferring IBM software licenses to Platform Solutions machines, said CCIA, which has members that are potential competitors of IBM."
Here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
We spent years trying to get IBM to stop being a monopolistic and evil company, finally got them to change (a bit).
Then Ma Bell, resulting in them being broken up.
Now ATT/Bell is back to being a gigantic mega-company again, and IBM is back to the same stuff they tried against DEC and others.
The more things change...
Bad news for Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this different from what Apple does with OS X and Macs?
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
While the direct circumstance appears the same, the big picture is not. IBM enjoys having practically no competition in the mainframe market. Apple's desktop/laptop market shares plenty of competition with PCs. A company that builds desktops or laptops that isn't allowed to license OSX still has the option of obtaining a license of windows or installing a Linux distribution on their machine. This will prevent Apple from being forced to open OSX, at least from a monopolistic standpoint.
Re:Here we go again (Score:0, Insightful)
A moron.
MOOORON!
O, holy FUCKING JESUS Bush was the sub-human RETARD who RUINED the UNITED STATES!!!
Re:If Slashdot were fifty years old.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Antitrust jurisprudence has changed a lot since the '60s. IBM's current behavior is most likely legal under current law. There is generally nothing wrong with unilateral refusals to deal, and I don't see how this situation deserves special treatment.
The problem here is that even though IBM's behavior is almost certainly legal, the DOJ could force IBM to spend a lot of money on essentially frivolous litigation. Anyone who favors the rule of law should be against these tactics. If the Obama administration wants to change the law, they should do it through Congress. The Congressional route is more efficient and fair, and won't punish companies for behavior that is legal under current law.
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple's and Microsoft's market shares were reversed, it wouldn't be different at all. But Apple by no means has a monopoly on PCs. This is about IBM abusing its mainframe monopoly. If Sun, etc were as big as IBM it would be ok, but it's not.
Re:Interoperability (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't see why IBM should have to license anything they don't want to, especially if it's someone who is going to try and take business away from them. I wouldn't shoot myself in the foot, why should IBM be forced to?
Just because IBM mainframe/support is expensive doesn't seem like a valid enough reason to whine to the DOJ. The article even says that the original agreement made in the 70s is no longer in effect.
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Cloning a mainframe doesn't mean cloning the operating system. Cloning a mac doesn't mean cloning the OS - I can make a workalike mac but apple still wont license me the software. Game machines have built in non portable operating systems. XB360s have operating systems married to their disc drives! In order to clone a game machine I'd have to clone the built in operating system which cannot be done due to copyright restrictions.
What I find interesting is how someone can make a workalike mainframe without violating IBM patents on some CPU/management/I/Oprocessing hardware. AMD and Cyrix have been able to "clone" Intel functionality only because of past agreements and licensing deals and lawsuits.
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
IBM is screwing with the big boys rather than screwing over "consumers". If someone tried to make an interoperable cell phone that was capable of running iPhone apps they would be shut down so fast your head would spin.
The entire PC industry started when someone reverse engineered the PC bios but those days are long gone and we live with laws like the DMCA, software patents, and other abominations that stifle innovation.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/technology/companies/08antitrust.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
CCIA is shill for Microsoft. Thats' why this is happening.
http://mainframe.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/press-reports-us-justice-dept-opens-ibm-antitrust-probe.html [typepad.com]
Re:If Slashdot were fifty years old.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
What are you talking about?
The Mainframe market had competition. Up until around 2000 Fujitsu/Amdahl and Hitachi both had Mainframe systems (the so called Plug Compatible Manufacturers). They decided to bail out of the market because they didn't see enough profit in them. Since that point, the mainframe has had constant competition from smaller systems. This investigation is nothing short of ridiculous.
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple had an effective monopoly on desktop and laptop machines (as IBM does on mainframes), it would be the same. But since Apple has no such monopoly, it's completely different.
And don't make the absurd statement that Apple has a monopoly on Macs unless you're willing to call BMW a monopoly because they're the only company that can build BMWs.
I see a business oportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
. Many mainframe customers would like to find cheaper alternatives, but IBM has prevented them from doing so, he said.
"There's a number of things they have done to numerous companies," he said. "In a time of economic troubles, government deficits and corporate problems, there's a lot of customers that [would find] a choice and lower costs really desirable."
Develop a "mainframe" computer - whatever that means these days, create an OS derived from Linux and develop a COBOL compiler and CICS system for it. I'm sure Websphere can be incorporated too.
Exactly, what's the big deal - technically?
Business: IBM's contracts run out, and move in with a cheaper alternative.
Re:Here we go again (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait, who is choking business? Seems like it's IBM that's choking business, not government.
You libertarians apparently don't understand that government is answerable to the people, and corporations are answerable to the government. Don't like that situation? Then don't apply to the government for a corporate charter. Don't sell your stock in a regulated stock exchange.
And when the government doesn't make the corporations accountable for their actions, and stop their abuses, corporations can be 10 times the tyrant that an unconstrained government can be.
Do what MS does. (Score:3, Insightful)
Give the hardware away for free with each OS licence sold.
Or in other words, the pricing doesn't change for legitimate customers, but these guys have to eat the cost of a full system plus their own hardware per sale. That'll stop it pretty fast.
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
They're not the only ones... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this different from Apple not licensing use of it's OS on non-Apple computers?
Wasn't Irix only licensed to run on SGI machines?
HP-UX? Others?
Re:If Slashdot were fifty years old.... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is not necessarily the case. Although it is correct to say that usually a company is under no "duty" to license out its IP, there are notable exceptions. One being, if a company has licensed its IP openly in the past and made assurances of future RAND licensing and a market/ecosystem has formed around it and then when it reaches a dominant position where the entry barriers are high (i.e. "installed base opportunism") and changes it strategy in order to make exorbitant profits--then antitrust might recognize a duty to deal.
In the mainframe space, IBM was under a consent decree (settlement with government) and government scrutiny until 2001, where it was deemed that due to changes in the IT world - the decree was no longer necessary b/c IBM faced new sources of competition. This competition never materialized--and in fact the few competitors who were in the market exited because they were no longer guaranteed interface specifications and licensing necessary to make compatible machines.
From the customer side, the vast majority of the world's corporate and public sector data is locked-into the mainframe--especially areas that require high-levels of batch processing--financial institutions, airlines, credit card companies, health care, social security administration, etc. It is incredibly hard to "migrate" off of a mainframe--sometimes impossible. This is why IBM can charge so much to legacy users--a gig of RAM on a mainframe costs almost $6,000--a little bit of a markup. In fact, mainframes apparently account for nearly a 1/4 of IBM's nearly $100 million annual revenue. The world is so tied to mainframes behind the scenes--IBM has even said on its own website: "It is no exaggeration to say that, without the Internet, many businesses would suffer but, without the IBM mainframe, the global financial system would collapse."
The companies at which IBM has allegedly taken this action against have all focused on helping customers migrate off the mainframe and allow this data to move to other, less expensive machines. It would definitely make business sense for IBM to do that--however, I also believe it is a likely violation of antitrust law--both here and in Europe.
This is basically the Apple vs Palm situation (Score:3, Insightful)
But if this was Apple vs Palm and iTunes instead of IBM and a mainframe OS, the fanboi's would be saying but Apple developed their software and have the right to deny the use of it to anyone else. Since this is IBM I bet the debate is going the other way... Lets go take a peek....
Re:Bad news for Apple? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except both of you are incorrect. There wasn't this massive mainframe competition. IBM was THE company. The others attempted to gain entry into their already owned MF market and at every corner because IBM had already a leg up on virtually all comers they used predatory practices and price pressure and refusal to cross license and highly restrictive software licenses to drive out any competition. They further forced any existing customer down a lengthy road of renewal negotiations if any outside big iron suddenly showed up. IBM is the master at that when it comes to their MF products. If had a nickle for every time I had to sit at the table with the MF reps as they squeezed out anyone who attempted to break into our shop id be a much wealthier person.
If you think there was lots of competition in the 90s you are highly mistaken. The few that were left held little niche market share and did so only due to the remaining anti-trust rules in place at the time. That market share then evaporated when clustered computing and personal computing took hold and not just marketing. The remaining companies could not compete against with IBM with that drop in sales and Microsft. UNIX systems too played a key role in eroding what was already slim sales of these firms compared to IBM. Even IBM suffered dearly in its MF division but was buoyed by its software and PC sales.
Having lived through this before and seen these claims before one would think IBM was all saintly and made all these massive improvements....mmmmmm no. The MF of today is relatively unchanged from the MF of 20 years ago. There have been upgrades and improvements for sure but no massive leaps. Newer silicon and face lift of the OS.
These claims that MS does not have a monopoly must come from those who apparently doent work with MF. They most certainly have a LOCK on the MAINFRAME market place and in the high TPS world, mainframe is still king.F ind a large bank of trading floor that doesn't have one locked away churning away. You might want to re-read that article you posted as well....IBMs z accounted for 9% of server revenue but what percent of MAINFRAME revenue where they certainly enjoy a monopoly position. When its comes to certain transaction based systems, GA systems etc. its mainframe or go out of business.
For the record IBM does indeed make some very good MF products that can in some cases be absolutely the king of reliability but it comes at a very very steep cost, kept artificially high due to their dominant and in many cases predatory position in that market.
Re:Here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)