According to a press release on December 14, 2009, NEON Enterprise Software LLC filed a lawsuit in the Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas alleging that "IBM has violated the Lanham Act and state unfair competition laws, and that IBM is liable for business disparagement and tortious interference with prospective contracts. NEON has also sought a declaratory judgment with respect to claims made by IBM concerning the characteristics of zPrime. NEON is seeking to recover actual and enhanced damages, disgorgement of IBM profits, a declaratory judgment and reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees."

Click here to read the complaint

On January 27, 2010, IBM filed its Answer and Counterclaims.

Click here to read IBM's Answer and Counterclaims.

On February 1, 2010, NEON filed an Answer to IBM's Answer and Counterclaims.

Click here to read NEON's Answer to IBM's Answer and Counterclaims.

Click to read Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E to NEON's Answer.

On February 17, 2010, NEON filed an amended complaint against IBM related to claims of anti-trust violations.

Click here to read NEON's First Amended Complaint.

On March 8, 2010, IBM filed an Amended Answer and Counterclaims.

Click here to read IBM's Amended Answer and Counterclaims.

On July 1, 2008, T3 Technologies Inc. announced its intent to file a formal antitrust complaint against IBM with the European Commission over alleged anti-competitive behavior in the European computer mainframe market. T3 further announced in August 2008 that it had retained the Brussels office of the London-based law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP to prepare and file the EU complaint. T3 also retained several expert witnesses to provide reports and documentation in support of its case.

T3 believes that IBM, as the dominant mainframe vendor, has shut out it and other manufacturers from sales in the market by ending support for older mainframe systems and not licensing its mainframe software.

On January 20, 2009, T3 Technologies, Inc. announced it filed a formal complaint against International Business Machines with the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition (DG-Comp) in Brussels.

T3’s complaint alleges a history of IBM abusing its monopoly power in the mainframe industry. T3 accuses IBM of engaging in a range of anti-competitive actions, including preventing the sales of competing mainframe hardware products by tying the sale of its operating system to its mainframe hardware, and withholding patent licenses and certain intellectual property to the detriment of mainframe customers.

On October 19, 2007, PSI filed a complaint with the European Commission. Complaints are not publicly available, but according to the European Commission spokesperson, Jonathan Todd, PSI claimed that IBM abused EU antitrust rules "by refusing to supply interface information relating to mainframe computers and refusing to license third parties."

On July 2, 2008, IBM announced that it was acquiring PSI and as part of the acquisition, PSI agreed to drop all antitrust complaints.

In 2006, IBM filed a complaint in US District Court against open mainframe computer marketer, Platform Solutions, Inc. (PSI), alleging breach of contract and patent infringement claims arising from PSI's development and sale of its IBM-compatible open architecture mainframe computer with IBM’s mainframe operating systems. It also asked the court for a declaratory judgment that IBM's refusal to license copyrighted operating systems, and other software to PSI does not violate any antitrust laws. Numerous claims, counterclaims and motions were filed by both parties including PSI’s claim that IBM violated federal antitrust and state unfair competition laws by unlawfully tying its mainframe computers to its mainframe operating systems. In November 2007, mainframe systems integrator T3 Technologies, Inc. filed a Motion to Intervene as Counterclaim-Plaintiff. In July 2008, PSI and IBM settled their actions when IBM acquired PSI. On September 30, 2009, the court granted IBM's motion for summary judgment and T3’s complaint was dismissed.

Click to read more ...

In 2002, Compuware filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") alleging, among other things, infringement of its copyrights and misappropriation of its trade secrets with respect to its mainframe software tools, intentional interference with contractual relations with its employees and former employees, antitrust law violations, tortious interference with its economic expectancy and various state law violations. In early 2003, Compuware asked the Court for a Preliminary Injunction on IBM’s sale of the competing products. At the end of 2003, the Court denied Compuware's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on the trade secret and false advertising claims, ruling that there were fact issues that needed to be decided by a jury. In early 2004, IBM filed patent infringement claims against Compuware in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Later in 2004, IBM admitted that the source code in question had apparently been simultaneously discovered at two separate facilities located on opposite sides of Australia. A month later, the U.S. District Court for Eastern Michigan sanctioned IBM for "gross negligence" in the software piracy portion of Compuware’s case against the technology giant and granted parts of Compuware’s motion for discovery sanctions and denied other parts. The following month, Compuware filed an objection to the U.S. District Court’s order based on IBM’s refusal to pay fees associated with the U.S. District Court’s order. In 2005, Compuware announced that it had entered into a software, services and technology relationship with IBM and settled all outstanding litigation.

Click to read more ...

In 1994, IBM filed its Motion seeking the immediate termination of the Consent Decree. In 1997, the district court entered its Order granting the parties' Joint Motion stating that certain Decree provisions terminated immediately and the provision related to IBM's AS/400 mid-range family of products and services ceased to apply after July 2, 2000, and the provision related to the S/390 mainframe series ceased to apply after July 2, 2001. Thus, after July 2, 2001, no portion of the Decree remained in effect.

Click to read more ...

During the early 1980s, the European Commission accused IBM of abusing its position as a dominant supplier by bundling its hardware and software and by not disclosing interface information. Despite concern expressed by the U.S. Antitrust Division over continuation of the European action, in 1984 the EC was on the verge of issuing a formal complaint when IBM agreed to an "undertaking.” In the Undertaking, IBM agreed to disclose interface information, at a reasonable and non-discriminatory charge, sufficient to allow both hardware and software manufacturers to attach their systems or networks to IBM mainframes and Systems Network Architecture within 120 days of the announcement of a new System 370 product, or at the time a product became generally available. It also agreed to sell unbundled System 370 computers with the amount of memory required for testing purposes within the European Common Market. Violation of the Undertaking could have lead to reinstatement of formal case proceedings. The Undertaking was to remain in effect for five years. In 1995, IBM unilaterally withdrew from its obligations covered by the Undertaking.

Click here for the text of the EC Undertaking ...

In 1952, the Government alleged that IBM had monopolized, attempted to monopolize and restrained trade in the tabulating industry, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Court issued a Final Judgment (consent decree) in 1956. The primary purpose of the decree was "to establish in the United States a used machine market" to compete against IBM's new computers. The judgment applied not just to tabulating equipment, but to all of IBM's computer hardware products and to its operating system software products, together defined as "Electronic data processing system" (EDP system) and "Electronic data processing machine" (EDP machine or equipment). In 1969, the Justice Department filed a complaint for the case U.S. v. IBM. The suit alleged that IBM violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the general purpose electronic digital computer system market, specifically computers designed primarily for business. The case was withdrawn in 1982 by William F. Baxter, assistant attorney general in charge of the Antitrust Division, Department of Justice.

Click to read more ...