COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;

The anti-trust case against IBM has about another year to go, and
will probably result in a judicial decision that will modify
how the Company operates.  There is still time for the computer
science community to consider how it would like IBM modified; i.e.
what modifications would contribute to the advance of computer
science and of computer technology.  If we were to decide that
we would like certain modifications and that there is a legal
case for making them, then some organization such as ACM could
offer a "friend of the court" brief proposing them.

	Here are the modificatoons I would like, although anti-trust
law is sufficiently uncledr to me that I wouldn't claim that there
is any legal case for enforcing them:

	1. Some years ago IBM took the Stanford version of LISP
for the IM 360 and the REDUCE algebraic computation system
and made a system for algebraic computations they call SCRATCHPAD
adding much useful program of their own.  By a company policy
which they claim is dictated by the previous anti-trust action,
they cannot make the SCRATCHPAD system available to anyone else -
even to the peopl? who contributed substantial parts of it.  This
should be changed.  I suppose the SCRATCHPAD situation is only
one tusk of a very large elephant.

	2. A few years after I published in 1962 the first proposals
to use abstract syntax to define the semantics of programming
languages, I was shown IBM confidential documents applying the
method to the definition of the syntax of PL/I.  I found this
offensive and am still offended by this secrecy that served
no commercial or other purpose.  Naturally, the subsequent open
publication of the PL/I work is mollifying, but I bet they have
other secrets that have no legitimate commercial reason.

	3. Now here is a matter about w?ich I don't think I am
legally entitled to get my way, but I mention it anyhow in case
someone else can think of a proper way of putting the matter.
IBM is a real graveyard of ideas for new computers many of which
are better in many ways than the computers that IBM actually produces.
I would like to see better use made of the many talented people
in IBM and would like to see at least small scale production of
some of these intesting machines.  I can understand their
commercial reasons for keeping tight control, but I offer the
observations that their software bind th the 360 and 370 comes
fro the fact that while hardware merger of commercial and
scientific computing was entirely feasible, the software
merger has created mons?ers that no-one can change, because
they have to be responsive to so many interests.

	I am sure this not all the scientific community would
want from IBM, and I am not sure whether we are legally entitled
to anything.  However, I am sure that the government attorneys
are in no way representing our interests, and that if we don't
say what we want, we are likely to find new unpleasant surprises
in the final decision after it has been interpreted by both Government
and IBM lawyers.

	I suggest that the ACM Council appoint a committee to
try to determine where the scientific community's interests lie.
Presumably it should not have members from computer or software
companies.