IBM Sues Micro Focus, Claims It Copied Big Blue Mainframe Software (theregister.com) 43
IBM has filed a lawsuit against Micro Focus, alleging the enterprise software company copied and reverse-engineered its CICS mainframe service to develop a rival product, the Micro Focus Enterprise Server. From a report: Big Blue has brought the case in the US District Court in New York, citing violation of copyright law and claiming that Micro Focus was in "blatant breach" of its contractual obligations with IBM. In a strongly worded complaint, the company accused UK-based Micro Focus of "brazen theft" of IBM software and said the suit was filed to "protect [its] valuable intellectual property." IBM is seeking compensation as well as an injunction against Micro Focus that would prohibit the company from distributing the products Big Blue labels as "derivative works" it claims are based upon IBM's own computer software.
Redeploy your IBM mainframe applications! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To me it's also a sign that IBM is seeing a declining popularity and less profit.
If your profit goes down you'll spend money on lawyers until profits increases or you can't pay the lawyers.
Re: (Score:1)
To me it's also a sign that IBM is seeing a declining popularity and less profit.
IBM has always been one of the most litigation-happy corporations on the planet. (Weirdly, I can't seem to find any lists of which corporations file the most lawsuits... I tried to report that none of Google's search predictions were even applicable, and the "send" button was greyed out.)
Re: (Score:2)
The long running joke has always been IBM is a law firm that also sells computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I'd call this evidence that IBM is back! IBM was built on suing their competitors for patent infringements. This is merely a return to form.
Looks like the old IBM is finally back!
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a sign that IBM has lost its mind. I mean they're claiming that someone deliberately on purpose copied CICS? A festering dungpile of an abomination from the 1960s?
The defence in this case should be trivial, "Your honour, this is CICS. Why would any sane person actually want to replicate this horror? The defence rests".
Re: (Score:1)
That "festering dumgpile of an abomination" still runs the backends of many of the world's most critical financial systems with ridiculously high transaction rates and availability.
By the way, most of the "dungpile" has been completely rewritten since the 1960's, there's barely any original code left. The remaining "dungpile" code is mostly for stuff like handling old 3270-style terminals, which is mostly just used via emulators by devs and sysprogs; nearly all the customer facing stuff goes through web and
Micro Focus AKA NetIQ / Novell (Score:2)
Micro Focus AKA NetIQ / Novell
Re: (Score:1)
No, Microfocus acquired Attachmate Group which had Novell and NetIQ and a bunch of other companies. But neither of those things are the main business of MicroFocus.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, they pretty much gutted Novell. Then again... who is using Novell past 2002?
So what? (Score:4, Interesting)
So what? The DMCA explicitly protects reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability. What does "copied" mean here? That's not a precise term in this context. Nothing in the summary explains why this is or isn't valid. What's more, the complaint also uses the word "copied" without explanation (at least in context) and it also blathers a lot about how innovative they claim they are, which is irrelevant to these claims.
A little bit lower in the complaint they rant about WSBIND files:
Incorrectly put, you mean. The WSBIND file configures CICS TS to do that, it does not enable it. That is done by the whole product as a package. Lie detected.
Oh, I very much fucking doubt it. See page 18 [cedix.de], a WSBIND file is apparently just an XML file or similar that defines the disposition of data.
You mean like giving them a way to generate WSBIND files that isn't a total shitshow?
Finally, the relevant complaint, which is not reverse engineering like the subject says, it's breach of contract.
What a waste of fucking time. Thanks, Register and Slashdot. Way to stay incompetent.
Re: (Score:1)
If Microfocus has signed a contract committing to not reverse engineering IBM's stuff, then it doesn't really matter what the DMCA says, does it?
I see you started to read my comment, and then stopped. *golfclap*
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of your comment implies you think El Reg is claiming it's not a breach of contract lawsuit, so what?
Tell us you can't read without telling us you can't read
Re: (Score:2)
Just reading two paragraphs of the linked article reveals that this is primarily a breach of contract lawsuit. If Microfocus has signed a contract committing to not reverse engineering IBM's stuff, then it doesn't really matter what the DMCA says, does it?
That's a bit of a naïve assumption as contracts are only enforceable where the law allows it. So it depends whether it's a section of the DMCA that trumps contract law. It also depends on whether the agreement is covered under UK law or US law (Microfocus being a UK company). The UK's Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 section 50B [legislation.gov.uk] which allows reverse engineering for interoperability and explicitly says: "Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists an
Re: (Score:2)
First, the suit is filed in New York, so UK law doesn't matter in the slightest. Second, even if it was in the UK, your own link says the protections for reverse engineering do not apply if you create a program 'substantially similar in its expression' to the copyrighted material. So yeah, you can reverse engineer CICS to make some program work with it. You can't reverse engineer CICS to clone it (which was what was done here).
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, I'm curious, do you actually support this anti-competitive behaviour or do you just think they're right in law and wrong on principle? Yeah yeah all companies do it. but frankly most of these EULAs are just designed to reduce competition beyond the advantages already granted by copyright and patent law. They are not good for the free market.
First, the suit is filed in New York, so UK law doesn't matter in the slightest.
According to IBM the governing law agreed in some of the contracts appears to be New York law so you may be right, more fool them. The copyright claims are like
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is enforcing your legal IP 'anticompetitive behavior'? There is no EULA involved here, this is a contract where both parties have input. If MF didn't agree with that "won't reverse engineer" clause they could ask for it to be changed, and IBM in turn could have said "no deal". Refusing to provide your competitor with a product so they can make a competing version is not anti-competitive, it is just common sense.
We aren't talking about some hypothetical case, we are talking about a real case an
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is enforcing your legal IP 'anticompetitive behavior'?
Since the US passed anti-trust laws that said that enforcing your legal IP can be 'anticompetative behaviour'. Look it up for yourself if you like. If you occupy a dominant market position (say in mainframes), behaviours that might be legal for a smaller company become illegal. This was why Microsoft was forced to compulsorily license a lot of their IP to rivals.
case was filed in US district court. US, not UK, law applies
To the contract claims in count 2 probably, but I'm withholding judgement until I see the defence. To the copyright claims in count 1? It gets a bi
Re: (Score:2)
Since the US passed anti-trust laws that said that enforcing your legal IP can be 'anticompetative behaviour'.
The US has had a total limp dick when it comes to punishing anticompetitive behavior for the last fifty years.
Re: (Score:2)
Defending your IP is not, per se, anti-competitive no matter how large your market share is. Using your IP to engage in OTHER anti-competitive behavior may be a problem. Furthermore, this case is not about 'mainframes', it is about a piece of software. ALL copyright holders have a 'dominant position' for their product. So no, enforcing your copyrights is not anti-competitive behavior.
Should it be a patent lawsuit instead? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They got the code to reverse engineer by signing a contract that said they would not reverse engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think UK law matters in the slightest to The United States District Court - Southern District of New York?
Well, which is it? Copying or Reverse Engineering (Score:2)
One of those two is a copyright violation. One of those is not actionable under US law (with the possible exception of Trade Dress).
Re: (Score:3)
Neither. It's breach of contract. The Register wrote a crap headline and Slashdot copied it.
What year is this again? (Score:2)
It's also slow AF and not particularly functional (Score:2)
Distorted Echoes From the Past (Score:3)
Did Darl McBride go to work for IBM when I wasn't looking?
boo frickin’ hoo (Score:1)
i stopped caring about the clowns at IBM once they fired all the old people. let ‘em burn.
Re: boo frickin’ hoo (Score:2)
In further news... (Score:2)
...IBM, Micro Focus, and CICS are all things which still exist and we used to care about.
I heard rumours of IBM suing Micro Focus in 2005 (Score:3)
In 2005 I was working for a bank that toyed with the idea of using the Micro Focus libraries to migrate away from z/OS onto GNU/Linux. It didn't take long before it was alleged that IBM was going to sue Micro Focus should that ever take place. Ah well, a fun project wasn't going to take place.
Needles to say that IBM will use all available options in defending their still considerable source of income.
Can't believe I'm seeing CICS in a headline (Score:2)
Is CICS code open source? (Score:1)
It would be kind of funny in a deja vu way!
CICS is small (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
CICS is not from 1969 you idiot. Yes, the first version may have been released then. I'm pretty sure the stuff referenced in this case (like XML files) was not in the product in 1969. And I would argue that allowing your customers to keep using their old code, while simultaneously allowing them to use new technologies as they are introduced requires a lot of innovation. On the other hand, merely copying what someone else has already done (like MF is accused of) requires no innovation at all.