Comment Re:Emulation/virtualization (Score 2, Insightful) 250
What is clear is that you have an agenda against IBM.
In this case, the law has yet to step in and say that IBM is abusing a monopoly position, even though you continue to imply that they are abusing a monopoly position.
" Would you want to pay 60 times as much for your telephone charges as you do now, just because someone exploits a monopoly so shamelessly?"
Again, it is your position that abuse is going on NOT the "laws". I know when I purchase enterprise class equipment (not mainframe level btw) I pay a lot more for it than I would for equipment I would use at home, but I also expect a lot more from it.
IBM didn't get to own a significant portion of the mainframe business because they were the only game in town. They earned their position and even at your claimed 80% of the market, I am not sure that they can get away with too much abuse because the "law" would be brought to bear pretty quickly. Mainframes are the in realms of the big boys for the most part due to the expense of their operation. The big boys have the resources and the influence to go after IBM if they are truly being abused.
I understand the complexes of moving a code.
"Since there isn't any competition anymore for IBM in the mainframe market, there are antitrust issues."
So %20 doesn't represent any competition? Other options are available and economics will determine what a company with a lot of legacy code will do. However, a lot of companies know the value of using IBM for mission critical computing.
Yes there are potential anti-trust issues but the "law" has yet to identity any abuse to this point.
Oh god! you link to sys-con.com as a reference and worse yet to Maureen O'Gara is the author. Well that says it all I WILL NO LONG REPLY TO YOU