“Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a 50-year-old can of legal worms: the question of whether IBM’s mainframe business, which is estimated to generate as much as a quarter of the company’s revenues, represents an anti-competitive monopoly,” Andy Greenberg reports for Forbes.
“IBM’s critics have been loud enough: The Computer and Communications Industry Association, a consortium of companies that includes Microsoft, Google and Red Hat, requested the DOJ’s investigation and claims that IBM has locked its mainframe customers into an overpriced IT system where it has complete control of both hardware and software. They say this stifles competitors that offer cheaper, more flexible options,” Greenberg reports.
“The CCIA’s central complaint against IBM is that it holds back the sale of its mainframe software to other IT companies whenever it perceives a threat to its supposed monopoly. Firms like T3 Technologies, Platform Solutions (PSI) and an open source project known as ‘Hercules’ have all attempted to build systems that could run the same functions as IBM’s mainframes, often on far cheaper hardware,” Greenberg reports.
“Apple, of course, refuses to license its operating system to competitors, even going as far as suing Miami-based Psystar, a small firm attempting to install and sell the Apple operating system on non-Apple hardware,” Greenberg reports. “The government hasn’t questioned Apple’s right to refuse its software to a company that could potentially sell a cheaper version of Apple’s product. ‘Apple would never give Mac OS to anyone, and no one would ever think to sue them for that,’ says Brad Day, a mainframe-focused analyst with Forrester Research.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Eric24601” for the heads up.]
Microsoft
Microsoft? Microsoft thinks IBM is a monopoly? Is there something IBM sells that stopped Microsoft from building their own abusive monopoly? It is too laugh.
Did I just wake up in 1969?
If you have an end to end closed system, it doesn’t matter how big it gets, your not a monopoly.
And, even so. A monopoly in itself is not illegal it is when there is anti competitive motions that make it illegal.
Apple is not doing anything illegal. If you don’t want to go by there rules, there are plenty of alternatives.
Same for IBM main frames.
It’s funny how many monopolies there are in the Computer world.
IBM has a Monopoly with mainframes, Microsoft with desktops, Apple with mobile devices, and Google with search and internet services. If I didn’t know better, it would seem as though there was pretty good competition in the market.
Re: eMax
You don’t have to have an end to end system to be a monopoly, you simply have to control the entire market.
For instance if you had a component crucial for the production of cars (say you had cornered the market for catalytic converter production) and had no competitors you essentially have a monopoly. if you abuse that, by preventing others form competing with you (say by strong arming costumers into not buying a start up company’s converters) you are breaking US antitrust law
On the other hand, ford is not a monopoly, even though they are the sole producer of fords, there are many alternatives to buying a ford therefor ford cannot control the entire car market (similarly the argument that apple has a monopoly on macs is also incorrect)
What about Microsoft that owns 95% of the world market. DUH!
Jubei ,
Yes Microsoft is a monopoly, but the case against Microsoft was not to determine IF it was a monopoly (it clearly was, by virtually any definition) It was whether or not it was abusing that position.
And yes it was found to be abusing it’s monopoly (like that was big news)
Monopolies can do a huge amount of damage to an industry by stifling innovation and fostering stagnation. MS is clearly a case in point. MS’s anticompetitive behavior did (and does IMHO) a huge amount of damage to the computer industry.
“Apple, of course, refuses to license its operating system to competitors, even going as far as suing Miami-based Psystar”
How do people KNOW Apple refuses, has anybody actually asked Apple for a license sense Mac OS 8?
I’m pretty sure Psystar didn’t ask to become a licensee. Personally I doubt Apple would allow it at this time, but you never know till you ask.
“We love to license, we want to sell you our software, but you got to pay a fair share” – Steve Jobs to the Mac cloners in the late 90s..
Actually, Dell is on record as being interested in licensing mac os
@GranitW, New guy?
a vertically integrated system isn’t monopolistic unless it controls virtually all the market. IBM doesn’t so where’s the problem? I find it truly stupid that if you make a strong, robust, reliable product by vertically integrating it, then automatically you’re assumed to be monopolistic: you’re betting the competiton so they claim no fair, even though the onus is on them to compete and displace the market leader. It’s like demanding BMW allow Volkswagen parts in their cars. Idiotic. Seems that when you’re on the outer then the insider is the bad guy, but not when the shoe is on the other foot ie. microsh*t the monster hypocrits. DOJ should start with microsh*t first and this time do the job properly, bot bend over because there’s a republican in the white house and microsh*t has lots of lobbyists.
What’s a mainframe?
Comment from: disposableidentity
What’s a mainframe?
Something they use in special scales to weigh a very fat person.
How does being republican give lobbyists any more power than being democrat? Look at the current administration and congress and tell me what’s the difference between the two parties right now. It’s like two interior decorators arguing over a shade of gray. Why don’t these companies try to compete with IBM instead of pursuing legal action? It’s pathetic that so many people think that the first place they have to run is the lawyer.
@disposableidentity:
A “mainframe” is a single computer that hosts a large number of users and processes simultaneously. Not like a server, which simply delivers data when requested (although a mainframe can act as a server) — a mainframe is designed to allow dozens or hundreds of users to be logged on simultaneously. It’s how all computing was done until computers got so cheap and powerful that everyone could have their own massive computing power sitting on their desk or lap.
I make my living programming IBM mainframes, which despite being based on technology dating back to the early 60’s, are still central to nearly every large business in the country, especially banks and insurance companies. I’m not aware of any significant desire for competition in this area. It would take the promise of a huge improvement or savings to inspire a company to take the step of replacing the very heart of its data infrastructure. We’re talking legacy code that can be decades old. You’d have to make sure all that stuff worked on the new software and hardware. Think of how big a deal the Y2K problem was, then double or triple it. That’s what you’d be talking about.
——RM
@@BrulekLook at the current administration and congress and tell me what’s the difference between the two parties right now.
One is actively trying to create solutions to this nation’s problem and the other is batsh*t insane. Next question?
——RM
microsh*t has very deep pockets…Of course there’s minimal difference between either parties…just happened that Bush was in the white house when the DOJ handed down the verdict of Microsh*t and no way was a republican admininstration going to break up microsh*t, even though they should have. Demoncrats would be a little more likely perhaps…since they are (supposedly) not as pro-big business as the republicans…though given the centrist, lowest common denominator approach of both parties even that is debatable..
they know because Apple filed a lawsuit against the company. you don’t do that if you don’t care. And it wasn’t a suit because they didn’t pay a license fee. it was because they don’t want to go back to cloning (which was tried once before and nearly killed the company)
although to be fair, first the company did it. then Apple sent them a letter telling them to stop, then PSYSTAR FILED AN ANTI-TRUST COMPLAINT, then Apple filed a counter suit. Then Snow Leopard came out and Psystar filed another suit, in California (after the first suit being tossed in Florida).
the whole thing is a joke. though this sounds more like IBM has gotten folks locked in via the fact that switching would be a pain in the ass. but someone could switch to another system if they wanted. just they would have to have all new computers and such. I have seen places run Mac Mini farms with Mac OS Server these days. but they were starting from scratch not changing over. so I don’t imagine it would be so easy
Google is proof that IBM is no monopoly, not Apple.