Editing IBM Future Systems project (section)

===Compatible concerns===
Until the end of the 1960s, IBM had been making most of its profit on hardware, bundling support software and services along with its systems to make them more attractive. Only hardware carried a price tag, but those prices included an allocation for software and services.<ref name=hansen />

Other manufacturers had started to market compatible hardware, mainly peripherals such as tape and [[disk drives]], at a price significantly lower than IBM, thus shrinking the possible base for recovering the cost of software and services. IBM responded by refusing to service machines with these third-party add-ons, which led almost immediately to sweeping [[anti-trust]] investigations and many subsequent legal remedies. In 1969, the company was forced to end its bundling arrangements and announced they would sell software products separately.{{sfn|Aspray|2000|pp=27, 28}}

[[Gene Amdahl]] saw an opportunity to sell compatible machines without software; the customer could purchase a machine from Amdahl and the [[operating system]] and other software from IBM. If IBM refused to sell it to them, they would be breaching their legal obligations. In early 1970, Amdahl quit IBM and announced his intention to introduce System/370 compatible machines that would be faster than IBM's high-end offerings but cost less to purchase and operate.{{sfn|Aspray|2000|p=32}}

At first, IBM was unconcerned. They made most of their money on software and support, and that money would still be going to them. But to be sure, in early 1971 an internal IBM task force, Project Counterpoint, was formed to study the concept. They concluded that the compatible mainframe business was indeed viable and that the basis for charging for software and services as part of the hardware price would quickly vanish. These events created a desire within the company to find some solution that would once again force the customers to purchase everything from IBM but in a way that would not violate antitrust laws.<ref name=hansen/>

If IBM followed the suggestions of the HLS report, this would mean that other vendors would have to copy the [[microcode]] implementing the huge number of instructions. As this was software, if they did, those companies would be subject to copyright violations.<ref name=hansen/> At this point, the AFS/HLS concepts gained new currency within the company.