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

So you are saying they can only run their code on IBM mainframe systems without spending money, and you want IBM to lose money so they can save money. Sounds like a poor business decision on their part. They need to make a business decision to either modify their code to run on something else (locking them into that system, whether FOSS based or proprietary), or pay IBM to continue to use the existing code. No complicated code is going to be perfectly portable between different systems.

Cheaper doesn’t mean better. IBM also has invested a huge amount of money in these systems to assure they operate at high reliability and as expected. These types of systems are expensive to run and code for, so they require a lot of money to operate.

IBM doesn't have a moral or legal requirement to license their product in a manner that would only harm IBM.

Please explain what 'standard' IBM is locking up as related to these cases specifically. This has nothing to do with standards and interoperability. Interoperability has to do with accessing data from a system, not running a proprietary system in a manner that the owner does not allow.

Don't you ever get dizzy from all of the spinning!

More spin and misdirection . . . This has nothing to do with interoperability. Both companies want to use IBM products in a manor that IBM doesn't want their product to be used. This is not about communication between an IBM product and other products.

Hey Mueller you seem to think IBM has to allow more choice on the use of their products. So, I think I deserve more choice also when it comes to the use money. I want the choice to take money out of your bank account to use in a way I see fit. Is that OK with you? Please forward the appropriate info to me so I can do that, OK?

The anti-trust issue has nothing to do with this. Even if IBM WAS convicted of abusing a monopoly position in the mainframe area they would not be required to give away (license) their product to whoever asked, and in the manor the requester wanted. Was MS required to give away their products after they were convicted of abusing their OS monopoly?

If IBM doesn't want to make z/OS available for use on non-IBM hardware they are under no legal or moral requirement to do so. You are talking non-sense or have other agenda you wish to pursue.

Again, look at the history of MS's dealing with their partners with which they have had contracts with. How many times have they been in court and lost. Of course you need deep pockets to take MS to court even if you are right. MS is no friend to open-source and if they can screw a software developer they will, based on past history. They are not happy with a slice of the pie if they can take the whole pie. They still have not come close to changing their spots . . .

In other words MS fanboys are ignorant of MS's history of backstabbing any competitor including one they have partnered with. Actually, especially the ones they have partnered with. CodePlex Foundation should be ignored by the open source community until MS has absolutely no possible influence within the organization.

Ummm . . . have you considered how many jobs, and how many innovative projects (companies) the MS MONOPOLY has killed . . .

I think we have seen how much MS innovates when they don't have competition, all one has to do is to look at how much R&D they put in to internet explorer prior to Firefox presenting a threat to IE. Look at the history, MS has been convicted of innovating by taking/stealing others work, and copying good ideals of other. I don't have a problem with them copying others within the law . . . Apple, Linux ect. all take something from the other as far as general concepts go. MS does have some good products and I use them everyday, but I would not call them innovative.

Monopolies by their nature minimize the number of jobs produced and the number of advances they make. Advancements aren't necessary until something else threatens the monopoly's monopoly.

Monopolies are not good for anyone but the monopoly itself.