I'm no more a lawyer than anyone else on this list. But IBM has
elaborate programs for vendors, including various contacts for
questions/opportunities/problems.
Contract/legal questions would be answered by lawyers who'd be unlikely
designers of competing features. And IBM -- especially its lawyers --
surely understands the need for firewalls between development and
information (likely received under NDA) which might taint it.
Or, of course, IBM might refuse the conversation, saying that contract
language speaks for itself, interpretation is up to one's own lawyers,
and risk is assumed by development treading near contract term's limits.
Binyamin Dissen said:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 01:19:43 -0400 "Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
:>In<listserv%[email protected]>, on 06/02/2011
:> at 12:38 PM, Scott Fagen<[email protected]> said:
:>>Exactly, IBM offers an interface and rules of engagement which the
:>>ISVs have to follow for zIIP offload capability. At CA Technologies
:>>we carefully evaluate "what" and "how" we offload to specialty
:>>processors to abide by that agreement. This is further bulwarked by
:>>our omnipresent legal staff.
:>Does IBM legal have a vendor representatives to whom you can send
:>queries as to the legality of proposed new facilities? That would seem
:>to be in the interests of IBM, the ISVs and the customers.
One wonders how they would be able to do this while at the same time design
competing features. Or recognize this and restrict it by contract.
--
Gabriel Goldberg, Computers and Publishing, Inc. [email protected]
3401 Silver Maple Place, Falls Church, VA 22042 (703) 204-0433
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/gabegold Twitter: GabeG0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
