THE FORUM THE IBM PROBLEM: TWO VIEWPOINTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-01092A000100030003-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 26, 2003
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: July 17, 1972
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

---I 4-1, -lw MOIL rGrl. Harley uavrason. take a
look at who's eating Harley Davidson's lunch these days.
.*5 rigpit: 03/04/02 CIA-RDPl8L 09 0001000~OOQ f#&iently alarming, look
for a moment at nat
l
i
a
secur
ty Almost witht
.ou exception, every major defense system which guards the
U. S. has been designed around our leadership in
computer technology. It may be tough being the
strongest nation in the world, but it's a lot tougher
being the second, third or fourth strongest: Our progress
and survival require technological innovation. Remain-
ing innovative p means remaining competitive from within,
The IBM driven b b the profit motive fundamental to the free
^ enterprise system. The last government-forced innovative
Viewpoints project was called the ci can now return the
present economic and technical al considerations which
make our industry a monopoly.
When RCA decided to leave the computer industry,
The Results of Domination the last door closed violently on competitiveness. RCA
It is the thesis of this paper that the computer industry demonstrated quite clearly that identical products
in extreme danger due to hat
prac of ustry. IBM's of ppresent monopolistic o i our and marketed in the computer industry. As long
bput forth
industry threatens not only those of us directly connected alasong RCA the listayednes that alive, not a had built had builtcould
with computers, it also threatens our nation. The a better et mousetrap.
arguments which support this thesis are a mixed bag When RCA failed to sell their identical but cheaper
of technology, economics and sociology. They are also mousetrap, it became clear that IBM did not have a
o
som f ewh o baseeupon fcs and sou extensions of related past better mousetrap-what IBM had was industry control.
experience. Before proceeding to discuss the issues How did IBM get that control? By being good. Damn
behind the monopoly in the computer industry, we must good. being toeing Damn of the. And probably their from
first clear away some basic debris. time to time, by beng some of the things that their
Many people souate arguments which uncover antagonists accuse them of. But trying to claim that
monopoly as a direct attack on IBM. This is understand- IBM doesn't have control is about as optimistic as
able since, if there is a monopoly in our industry and their on pass, his sergeant, as the Indians make
if a monopoly is bad, then there ought to be a bad guy r second ter second pass, telling to take any live prisoners.
around somewhere, Unfortunately, nothing could be The computer industry has still not fully recovered
another from the truth. IBM stands not as a living from the conversion trauma associated with the transition
further from
the power of free enserutise and n from second to third generation computing. The evi-ment to achievement possible in a democracy. Their ability to donee of the massive conversion difficulty is seen, for
plan is awesome and they are unquestionably one of the continue continue to o operate number in emulation ate in oIBMmode. noble who
best managed organizations of any kind in the world, . The problem
It is, in fact, IBM's sheer capability for greatness that is still so severe that IBM was compelled to include
is in large part responsible for the monopolistic situation can be sa in their System/37 a Wane many good teiof
as it now exists, And if it took great leadership to get can be said for emulation, it has a notorious feature of
as it now point, it's going to take el greater leadership encouraging users to stagnate and forcing comparative
to get this
away from o. conversion costs significantly in favor of the manufac-
We can now clear away a second piece of debris. turer who can emulate his previous product regardless of
This concerns t argument that even e there is a its quality. It is interesting to note that this trauma has
monopoly in the e argument
computer t
that fth r tsrible been so ingrained in the user marketplace that during
industry, ' so
about that? the last four years the only segment of the industry
Several things. First, there is the problem of foreign `Which has shown any reasonable growth whatsoever has
erosion of a major industry. Them of foreign the plug-in compatible equipment group.
erosion the world leader domestic
computing T OU. S. sty to Where do we go from here? Third generation computing
remain a leader is directly proportional to our ability equipment brought with it many blessings. One of these
to remain technologically innovative. As technological in was
formmaation file to mani free pul the ation me con mec hchani user sm s. T fs. Th es iesernal
growth stagnates, which has already begun in our ne
industry, it opens the doors to nations unwilling to make mechanisms are now part of the hardware rnanrafacturer
our investment in technology but more than willing to supplied operating system.
take advantage of lower labor costs. The Japanese, Initially, these mechanisms did relatively little since
forex ad ant e ftlo e labs tco ts The
J tpa se, nor their major task was to map pure sequential file struc-
, i radio no the color TV tube, and look what's happened to toles. During the last four years, however, the use of
eve theumer el V tub ,ca id look in the a S. When was nonsequential file techniques has expanded a thousand-
ndry U. In , last time Volkswagen was innovative? To underscore boldehi. nd d th hese ese c techniques dahata has been structures adendrainsparen on
that one and examine what happens when a foreign bq ba made ansparent
manufacturer decides to innovate, consider Mercedes to the user. At the same time, assembly language
Benz. With each innovation, they become non-competitive programming has almost vanished in contrast to source
with U.S, manufacturers. Foreign erosion in the con- level language programming. This subtle shift in function
sorrier electronics and the automotive industry has cost now places the entire industry on the horns of an
the U. S. hundreds of thousands of jobs and added unbelievable dilemma. Eight years ago we were trauma
considerably to our balance of payments deficit. Or tized by program conversion. Now, we are slowly being
consider-foryears, the number one motorcycle cum locked in to c a structures whose
in the world waA p'1 &iFQTnRi0l9a?Eli M/g : CIAc m ty0 expensive, extremely
and ate everybody's lunch in the process. Soon, every- difficult, and in some cases, next to impossible. The
 dilemma we face i prt-dveldtFdiiReI ei20Cf3/04/0
bandage, .ve are actually accomplis ; many more
valuable computing tasks than everfore. We took
our uppers and we are still too high to see anything but
the clouds.
Second generation computer users continue to
emulate outmoded equipment because it is less expen-
sive than to convert, and (as we've said) he who had
the emulator got the customer. The present shift of
information processing toward data orientation means
that, for the next go around, he who has the data gets
the customer. The last time, we emulated programs in
computers. This time, we will emulate data mechanisms.
This means that the very blessing that permits us to
perform vastly complex direct access storage operations
will lock us into the hardware supplier and his con-
veniently transparent software.
For years, many members of our industry felt that
standards were a solution to the problems of manufac-
turer dominance, conversion, and competition. The
facts are that standards, even when they work, are an f
ineffective and stagnating tool. COBOL, for example,
became standardized not because it was a good language,
but because of the sledge hammer wielded by one
customer: the U. S. government. And while the
American National Standards Institute flits about with
communications control standards, few manufacturers
follow them in the construction of remote terminals and
their central processing communication interfaces. The
computer industry needs standards to be sure. Many
standards. But it needs standards which ensure inno-
vation and competitiveness, not those which guarantee
industry stagnation and foreign erosion of our industry.
U. S. technology today is on the brink of develop-
ments which have the potential for revolutionizing our
approach to computing mechanisms. But we can never
get there in a one-manufacturer-dominated industry,
regardless of why the industry is so dominated. If there
were a simple solution to the problems'of our industry,
we wouldn't be on our present treadmill, It is our
responsibility, as members of the industry, to take
appropriate action and help restore free enterprise and
competition to the computing industry in the U: S. I am
proposing a three-point program whose objective is to
do just that:
1. Take whatever action is necessary to begin an
immediate Congressional investigation concerning
monopolistic practices in the computer industry and
the Justice Dept.'s failure to mount sufficient effort
to solve this problem.
2. Take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that
the Justice Dept.'s funding for prosecuting their present
suit against IBM is of an order of magnitude sufficient
to withstand IBM's lawyers and delaying tactics.
3. Initiate funding for the formation of an industry
advisory committee which could report both to Congress
and to the Justice Dept. and which would be chartered
with the task of technically developing a plan to restore
competition to our industry. This committee should be
staffed with a wide variety of computer industry
technical, marketing, and management executives. This
committee, in concert with the Justice Dept., can
formulate a plan for the future of the computer
industry,
In the three years since the Justice Dept. filed their
suit against IBM, two major competitors (GE and RCA)
have left the industry. Dozens of smaller competitors
have gone bankrupt. IBM's budget for their legal defense
of this suit and the Control Data law itI is over 77
million a year, invoIARplS y 3/04/0
materials, and occupies the time of over 200 people.
e Ptnou~, `nT it was
impossible to put to-
gether a. large. capacity
data file system
for under $6,000
Then we did it. We put together the Xebec
"MEGA-STOR" System combining a moving head
disk drive and formatter that's so small it fits into
a standard 19" EIA rack, is only 8.75" high; has
average random access of 75 milliseconds; a
storage capacity in excess of 1.2 mega-words and
costs far less than any other system on the market.
Our flexible system gives you a choice of 12,16,
24, or 32 sector formats with word lengths from
32 to 256 words. It can be expanded from one (1)
to up to four (4) disk drives.
We put together our MEGA-STOR system with
all the necessary control and timing, double
frequency write data generation, control and data
error checking, data word buffering, multiple
disk unit addressing, programmable write
protection, preamble generation and checking,
cyclic redundancy check and generation, and lots
more features which make it the most versatile
system available today. No wonder we sell more
computer peripheral subsystems than anyone
except the mainframe manufacturer himself.
So, if you think it's impossible to put together
a data file system that can do all that, but costs
under $6,000 fill out and return the coupon below.
Welt show you how.
^ Please send me more information on your
XMSD MEGA-STOR system.
^ Have a salesman stop in to see me.
^ My application is
What car you do to help me?
Name
Position_
Company-
Address
City_ State __Zip
.
TFie C;ompanny a - ufs AIIt ogethe4 _ _.-
 the forum
Approved For Rpase 2003/04/02
The Justice Dept.'s staff is approximately seven people.
I'd say that's pretty good odds in IBM's favor and
something has to change. If you agree, you can help
by contacting your. elected representatives and re-
questing them to act immediately on this program.
If you have a better idea, tell your elected officials
about that.
-Gerald H. Larsen
President
Unicorn Systems Company
The 2,700-An Open Letter
Judge Philip Neville
U. S. District Court
316 North Robert St.
St. Paul, Minnesota
55101
Dear Judge Neville:
This is in response to your order of Dec. 13, 1971,
to provide information from Personal Data Services
Corp. to assist the court and IBM in defining the edp
market for products and services.
In my 26 years of experience in the computer field,
I have never been so surprised, amazed, and startled to
a point of disbelief, as I was when I received your court
order...
The documents forwarded to me by IBM's attorneys,
John French and Norman Carpenter, tell an incredible
story about what has been happening to our courts, our
system of justice, and to the computer field itself.
As one of the pioneers in the field, and a long time
consultant to nearly all of the large suppliers of com-
puters as well as to many users, I believe it is desirable
for me to enlighten the court on several issues raised
by the entire case. These issues are fundamental and go
directly to the core of many problems in business,
government, society and the computer field. The prime
reason for my calling these to your attention is that I
do not believe you can achieve your objective of market
definition using your present approach. In addition,
the definition of the market on the traditional basis will
not help detect the most fundamental problem of all:
namely, the extreme dominance by one company of
a field of interest and endeavor second in importance
to very few in this country.
The issues are as follows:
IBM dominance
The dominance of IBM in the computer field is well
known to nearly everyone. The measurement of that
dominance is tricky and complex. Most opinions are
based on measuring the percentage of dollar volume
sales of main frame computer equipment. IBM's percent
has always been in the range of 70 to 75, with the
second competitor in the 3 to 7% range.
This method is probably not too far off, if one is
seeking a quantitative figure. Admittedly, IBM's percent-
age of the grand total of dollars spent for information
systems and services (a category much broader than
main frames) is much lower. However, IBM's true
dominance can not be measured by percentages of
things bought or sold.
There is only one word to describe the real dangers
inherent in IBM's dominance, and that is "influence."
The influence ext ~ ~ r~lp~ Oe4 secM04/02
making and busine s processes in government, e uca-
tion, industry, science, etc., most of which are based
upon information. Thus, the dominance should be
measured in terms r` "he number of decisions, or
CI> @P758-W08 IG8013009014rmeating the
American way of life in the 1970s.
For example, walk into any corporate office of a large
or small company today, and ask what supplier fur-
nishes the business system upon which they depend.
The odds are greater than three to one (more than 75%)
that the answer will be, IBM. That is real, and danger-
ous, domination. No other industry of any major
importance (except the telephone industry) is so
dominated by one company.
Effects of dominance
The permeating effects of IBM's dominance can be
felt in practically every walk of life, from business, to
government, to education, to science, to labor, to
politics, to the professions, and to the public. Some of
these effects have been good, measured on the scale
of the greatest good for the greatest number of people
and organizations. However, most of the effects have
been bad, measured on the same scale. The list of bad
effects covers several pages. Briefly, six of them are:
1. Disappearance of competitors and impossibility of
survival.
2. Excessively higher systems costs, especially
software.
3. Slow progress in types of systems needed by
customers, example: on-line real-time systems.
4. Misleading of users, especially smaller users.
5. No competitive bidding-consultants frozen out
or handed IBM as only selection.
6. Ingrown IBM attitudes, insiders from IBM, user
fear of going against IBM.
Perhaps the specific policies of IBM have brought
about these bad effects. However, it is much more likely
that the dominance itself is what has caused the
problems. Any competitor dominating an industry as all
pervading as the information industry, to the extent
that IBM has dominated it (more than 75% of the
market, based on influence) would probably cause the
same bad effects or even worse ones.
The interesting thing about this is that IBM manage-
ment is well aware of the bad effects, due to the consent
decree of several years ago. The lawyers at IBM as well
as the management continually question whether their
dominance is really good for the country.
Plight of competitors
The issue of how or whether competitors can stay in
the information systems and services: business is raised
by the case. I served as one of several consultants to
the management of GE when they were evaluating
the question of what to do about the Information Systems
Division in 1969-1970. As you know, they decided to
sell most of the division to Honeywell in the spring of
1970.
The evaluations made by the consultants as well as
GE management at that time were quite comprehensive
and complex. It was felt that to continue in the busi-
ness, the division would have to increase its share
of the market (measured on the basis of main frame
sales) to a level above some survival threshold. It was
felt that this would be impossible to accomplish, as long
as IBM dominated the field, without an extremely large
new investment on the part of GE.
Another approach might have been to attempt to
compete in a broader market (the information systems
and services market) and to change the entire marketing
CI17?-~6Y60bl~4nanagement
policies. his wou d nave involve an even greater
investment and some fundamental changes within GE.
 -The only sensible decision av,''able to management
was the one tltllppinodRecl3a ed2OOMO4/02 : C
to get out of the business except for a minority (18%)
interest in the new Honeywell company.
While I am not completely familiar with the RCA case,
I am sure that a similar situation existed. In fact, the
same set of dominance problems faces, or will face,
any of the major main frame suppliers. You can look for
more of them to fold, or merge in the near future, unless
something is done to change the IBM dominance.
The dominance also prevents newcomers from enter-
ing the field in any substantial way. The latest large
entrant, Xerox, is having great difficulties.
Who loses?
If the industry continues to be dominated as it has
to date, the question is, who will lose? Who will suffer
from the dominance problem? The answer is.. everyone!
Everyone, including IBM, will suffer in the long run,
from an unhealthy industry. Any consulting firm active in
the information systems field can tell you this. Even
those doing marketing consulting for IBM will, if they
are pressed hard, make the same statements about the
ill effects of IBM dominance.
How dominant is IBM?
One issue raised by your survey of 2,700 companies
is: Will you find out what IBM's dominance is or what
the market is that IBM dominates by means of the
questionnaire prepared for you by IBM?
The answer is that you will not find out. You will not
find out, first, because the 2,700 companies are not
going to answer the questions. Either they will not
answer at all, or else they will send you sales literature
and published price lists. Secondly, even if they did
answer properly, the chances are you would be com-
pletely misled by the data. For example, the information
systems and services field, from a business system
point of view, does not and never will include many, or
even most, of the products and companies on the
IBM list of examples.
IBM's strategy is obvious. If they can convince you
that the "total" market includes all of those products
and services furnished by the 2,700 companies surveyed,
they will look pretty good. Their percentage may even
be as low as 50% measured on a dollar volume basis.
If the court's only measuring stick is dollar volume, then
dominance will have been disproved.
As indicated earlier, IBM's true and real dominance
is of a different nature, and amounts to a much higher
percentage than the 75% dominance of the main frame
market. The court should, or some independent group
of professionals should, set the proper ground rules for
measuring dominance and set about collecting the
proper, meaningful data. There are a number of
professional groups and consultants sufficiently un-
biased and knowledgeable to do this.
Security of data
I get a very queasy feeling about how private and
secure any data I might send you will be. One reason is
the publicity in Business Week recently concerning the
.court clerk's error in allowing the Business Week
reporter to see the 30 odd file drawers containing the
responses of 1,500 companies. A second reason is that
the court order was mailed to me with a cover letter,
not from you, but from the IBM's lawyers. Now, this may
be standard legal procedure, but if it is, I object to it
strenuously.
If I object, thAPP9 a{K Ft?ft INleasep2n003104/Og2 :
the most to lose by exposing all of their secrets to IBM
would also object. The questions asked in your (or
PROGRAMMER'S KIT
Hex and decimal
calculators, conversion
tables, slide rule, .5mm
pencil with refills, eraser,
ballpoint pen with stylus,
programmer's pad and.
programming template in
a lockable, custom
fitted briefcase.
Octal Calculator
f9
TAX DEDUCTIBLE
Please ship immediately on 15 day approval! .
HEXADAT
credit balance and
automatic complement
feature, conversion
tables, leather zipper
a Programmer's Kit $94.50 ^ Hexadat $35.95 rj Octadat $14.95
^ Enclosed is $ ship oostoaid F-1 Purchase nrdnr nf+.,h.A
^? Name/Title
^ Company
Address
City- State ___Zip
a Radix Precision Co., Box 13861, Atlanta, Georgia 30324
ees sal peal ems esm ses sse non e~ eon ermt e~ ~lll ess tie ~ w7
CIRCLE 89-ON-READER CARD
FREE EMPLOYMENT SERVICE
FOR PROGRAMMERS AND ANALYSTS
NY/NJ/PA/DEL/CONK and other
eastern and national locations
RSVP will provide free employment
counselling and develop and selec-
tively distribute your resume.
Typical openings (not necessarily cur-
rent) include systems programming
(SYSGEN, maintenance) and appli-
cations for IBM 360 OS/DOS and
Univac 1108 Exec 8/Exec 2; telecom-
munications / teleprocessing / on-line
systems; BTAM/QTAM; BOMP/PIGS/IMS; ABM/orbital analysis/
radar systems; urban/social/transportation; OR/simulation/model-
ling; minicomputer software and applications; data base design;
operating systems/compilers/data management; customer engi-
neering; computer and peripheral marketing/sales; COBOL/
FORTRAN/PL-1/Assemblers; manufacturing/insurance/banking/
brokerage/hospital/d istri b u li on/military.
Call or send resume or rough notes of objectives, salary, location
restrictions, education and experience to either of our offices. Or
check the reader service card for a free sample resume and sample
job descriptions. We will answer all correspondence from U.S.
citizens and permanent residents.
? Howard Levin, Director, RSVP SERVICES, Dept. M, One
Cherry Hill Mall, Suite 714, Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08034,
[phone]
? Charlie Cooke, Manager, RSVP SERVICES, Dept. M,
Suite 104, Towle Building, 1777 Walton Road, Blue Bell,
-RDR 78-0*O92A0m91WOO30003-4
RSVP SERVICES
employment agency for computer professionals
 Tile Torum
~'/HATApprovedOr Ieaeeo03/b4/02
FREE BUSLLET N RTUNI t t s
Cadillac Associates represents the notion's largest and most re-
spected professional placement service. Our close relationship with
the notion's finest firms generates continuous career opportunity
information and allows us to confidentially present your qualifica.
tions to those at "decision-making" levels.
Our bulletin, published quarterly, listing available opportunities in
the Systems & Data Processing field is available free of charge and
will be mailed to your home upon your request.
For your free bulletin, without any obligation, circle reader service
card #400. Please USE HOME ADDRESS ONLY!
FREE PLACEM PLACEMENT SERVICE
If you desire immediate assistance is locating an opportunity con-
sistent with your objectives (professional/financial/geographic),
CALL OR WRITE TODAY. A member of our staff of SYSTEMS &
EDP SPECIALISTS will reach you by telephone to discuss your
objectives and how we might help you satisfy them. A resume,
or some details of background, will be appreciated.
Remember: Our client firms are located from coast to coast and
assume all expenses (agency fee, interviewing & relocation).
E. W. MOORE
Executive Vice President
CADILLAC ASSOCIATES, INC.-
32 West Randolph St. Chicago, III. 60601
[phone]
`Where More Executives Find Their Positions Than Anywhere
Else in The World."
IMMEDIATE OPENINGS
FOR COMPUTER
SOFTWARE ENGINEERS
? Realtime operational systems requirements analysis and de.
sign. Includes definition of computer software requirements, de-
veloping plans and specifications, performance of trade and
design studies of hardware/ software systems.
? Realtime operational systems computational analysis and
algorithm development. Develop and evaluate numerical algo-
rithms to satisfy specific requirements for aerospace systems.
? Realtime operational systems computer program develop-
ment and implementation. Development and implementation of
computer programs for operational systems, simulators and other
realtime applications and for programs to assist in debugging and
testing of operational software systems.
? Computer hardware systems design and application to aero-
space products.
? Electronic information display systems design.
Educational requirements: Applicants should have a minimum
of 2 years experience in one of these areas and accredited degree
in one of the following disciplines- Electronic or electrical engi-
neering, aeronautical engineering, physics or computer science.
Please send detailed resume to The Boeing Company, P.O. Box
3707, Dept. AAD, Seattle, Washington 98124,
ZZA
2~
Aerospace Group
An ApprO)iednF9-mR ease 2003/04/
IA-RDP78-01092AQ,0100030003-4
rather IBM's) questionnaire cover the most sensitive
competitive data I can imagine.
There is no indication in the court order, or in the
material sent with it, as to who at IBM will be allowed
to see the data or to use it. You will not be able to
legislate the number of people or the particular people
within IBM who will see and use the data. Compared
to the main issue, IBM's dominance, this is perhaps a
minor issue. Nevertheless, it is quite bothersome.
Costs of data collection
Your decision to force 2,700 companies to bear
their own costs (rather than having IBM pay) in
supplying data, so that IBM can prepare a defense in
the main suit, is really an unbelievable decision. Surely,
the U.S. government has the resources to collect data
to define a market in an antitrust case. Assuming that
the Justice Dept. truly does want to do something about
the information systems industry and its unhealthy
state, why can't they pay the costs? Compared to the
total amount of money the federal government loses
every year because of IBM's dominance (in software
overhead alone), the costs of gathering data pertaining
to the problem would be small.
The reason the documents I received seem so in-
credible and unbelievable is the surface appearance of
the case. It would seem that IBM is controlling the
entire situation, dominating the courts, just the way they
dominate the industry.
1. The court has apparently accepted IBM's attempt
to define the market in a way favorable to them.
2. The court has followed IBM's suggestion and
forced 2,700 companies to provide information.
3. The court has decided that the 2,700 companies
will pay the costs of collecting information and not IBM.
4. The court plans to turn data on a falsely defined
market over to IBM for use in their own defense.
5. The court is forcing highly sensitive data to be
supplied by competitors and made available to IBM.
6. The court has allowed IBM's lawyers to send the
court order along with other material to the 2,700
companies.
7. The court appears headed for a decision in which
IBM's true dominance will be completely hidden.
The overall issue
The overall major issue with which the court, the
Justice Dept., and everyone else should be concerned
is the health of the information field. The Control
Data position is important in that overall context,
primarily because if CDC falls, then the industry will
really be on the way to a total monopoly.
GE and RCA, together with Sperry Rand, Xerox,
Honeywell, and to some extent even Burroughs and
NCR, have had other products and markets to keep them
going. CDC has had to rely on Commercial Credit to
keep going in recent years. But CDC was the only one
of the big eight main frame manufacturers whose
prime business always was computers.
Greyhound's interests are also important from the
leasing and service point of view. But, if the court
decides in favor of IBM,.based on the data it will receive
using the current approach, the entire major issue will
have been missed and total disaster will occur. All of
the basic principles of our democracy will have
been violated.
IA-RDP78-01092A00010003 0 0,6" t4ard E. Sprague
President
Personal Data Services Corp.
CIRCLE 402 ON READER CARD
136
 Approved For Release 2003/04/02 : CIA-RDP78-01092A000100030003-4
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
ROOM NO.
7D07
I-7 July 1972
These two presidents are a little
hot under the collar, but you'll be
interested in their arguments on IBM
anyway.
C /IPS /0 /PPB
ROOM NO. I BUILDING
6E O7 02 I-Iq.
FORM NO
I FR 55 24 1 REPLACES FORM 36-8
WHICH MAY BE USED.
25X1A
25X1A
STATOTHR
Approved For Release 2003/04/02 : CIA-RDP78-01092A000100030003-4