[Info-vax] Latest TCPIP Services seem irreparably horked...

[John Wallace]

On Mar 5, 6:21 am, hel... at astro.multiCLOTHESvax.de (Phillip Helbig---
undress to reply) wrote:
> In article <4f543b84$0$1541$c3e8da3$f017e... at news.astraweb.com>, JF
>
> Mezei <jfmezei.spam... at vaxination.ca> writes:
> > > So basically, TCP/IP is now been developed on the basis that customers
> > > will not be able plug in third party components to replace the HP
> > > supplied components.
>
> > Correct, and in all fairness, I don't think you could really criticise
> > HP for this.  This was in effect way back in the Digital days.
>
> > Remember that the competing stacks such as TGV and Wollongong all had
> > their own full mail suite with POP servers as well. So people who went
> > with those stacks already had those servers which were generally better
> > than the one supplied by Dec/Compaq/HP.
>
> > So having interoperability between individual components of different
> > stacks was never seen as a priority or necessity.
>
> This is an argument which I've never understood.  Usually, it is applied
> to Microsoft's "unfair" practice of bundling IE with the OS and making
> it difficult to use another browser instead.  It seems to me that IF YOU
> DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T BUY IT.  We don't require car manufacturers to
> design their cars so that one can easily swap the factory-supplied
> engine, or air-conditioning system, or brakes or whatever with
> third-party products.

The MS case was about abuse of monopoly, a single player with
significant market power in a specific market, which presumably isn't
the case for VMS in the general IT market.

"We don't require car manufacturers to design their cars so that one
can easily swap the factory-supplied engine, or air-conditioning
system, or brakes or whatever with third-party products."

Actually I thought there were legal precedents to the opposite effect
in some countries e.g. the UK and quite possibly the EU. If I remember
rightly, vehicle manufactureres have been legally required to permit
and not obstruct the supply of "compatible" after-market parts such as
exhaust systems. Can't remember the full details, and as with all
things legal, different countries may have different rules, and the
rules may change from time to time anyway.

e.g. http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/british-leyland-motor-corporation-ltd-v-armstrong-patents-co-ltd

Closer to HP territory, there have been various legal rulings about
the manufacture and supply of compatible ink/toner cartridges e.g.
Lexmark vs Static Control Components.

Whether any of this is applicable in the case of HP TCPIP Services vs
the others is another discussion.