Its about time, I guess. Last Thursday I received an email, strangely enough from Gartner’s Vendor Relations department, asking me to remove a link from monkchips, because it apparently constituted “unauthorised use”.
So wait a second. I can’t post a URL to a Gartner site? What exactly would be the penalty for doing so?
Vendor relations? I am not a vendor.
Shouldn’t it be the responsibility of Gartner, and in this case SAS, to protect their intellectual property? I mean that’s what firewalls and registration mechanisms are for, isn’t it?
The irony is that I was going to follow up and say what good work Gartner had done, with a new and improved, and most importantly formally documented, methodology for the Magic Quadrant.
I can’t point you to the useful resource however. Well I can- it would be interesting to see Gartner find a way to punish me for publishing a url. But I think I am doing quite enough of Gartner’s marketing here already.
This isn’t even a Big Co pushes small co around story.. its really too silly for that. I am certainly not looking for any sympathy (although a couple of blog posts wouldn’t go amiss!). I do however suggest SAS and Gartner go and work it out between themselves. As of now the “issue” still remains – the “missing link” is still in the wild. Its really not my problem. Well done Gartner with the new transparency – its just a shame nobody can see it.
Whatever you do don’t go check out SAS.com for this information: who knows what rules you’ll break if you do.
In case you’re wondering – our library is free. Its not extensive, but it has zero barriers to participation. We want people to read our stuff and make their own contributions.