And Allen-Myland Inc says that it is to appeal the ruling that it violated IBM’s copyright in 3090 microcode: the judge ruled that when splitting a 3090 into two smaller models, it copied the microcode for one of the two computers that resulted where under a contract with IBM, Allen-Myland was required to obtain the second set of code from IBM, according to IBM spokesman Brian Doyle; Allen-Myland contends that microcode is part and parcel of the machine and that customers should be allowed to alter it and that the copied code was used solely in computers owned by the same customer from which the copy was made, and that it did not sell the copied code to other customers; the judge also ruled that IBM’s pricing of the microcode violated the 1956 consent decree.
