🚀 go-pugleaf

roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:

>peter@global.hacktic.nl (Peter Busser) writes:

>> roy%cybrspc@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes:
>> 

>> IBM is (or was) only able to sue clone makers who copied (i.e. whose work was
>> largely identical to IBM's) the IBM BIOS or electronics.

>You have to wonder about that, though... wasn't IBM going to keep
>MicroChannel a proprietary bus?  And how long did the cloners take to
>put out compatible cards?  
>roy%cybrspc@tfsquad.mn.org   cybrspc!roy@tfsquad.mn.org   roy@tfsquad.mn.org

IBM's plan was to make sure that clone makers could make clones, but only
if they licensed the bus arcitecture.  They hoped that it would become
very popular among third party hardware manufacturers, and they would
have some control of the market this time, and thus get a larger piece of
the pie.  The delay you noted is more due to the vendors waiting until
the market was big enough to bother with IBM directly, and their licenseing 
fees.

Ryan (tannerr@prism.cs.orst.edu)

-- 
Ryan Tanner (tannerr@prism.orst.edu)        Highlander III quote:
                                                   "There can be only FIVE!"

DISCLAIMER:  I don't even know the person!