4 ms·

reminds about the IBM's "strategic mistake" of allowing BIOS clones that triggered the PC revolution.

by VladRussian 15y ago

joezydeco 15y ago
Huh? IBM couldn't stop BIOS clones after they lost the Compaq lawsuit.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  Their publication of BIOS source allowed for successful "clean room" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies#History Interesting history to compare with discussed in another thread Google's Java API "infringement".
  - joezydeco 15y ago
    The publication of the API allowed for clean room engineering of BIOS clones, but the publication of the IBM BIOS source was a defensive move to taint the pool of engineers that would be trying to write clones.
    - beagle3 15y ago
      The publication of the source code was not a defensive move. It predated the clones - it was a time in which it was customary to include schematics with manuals (I still have an "XT Technical Reference" at home which includes full schematics and commented bios source code.
      - joezydeco 15y ago
        Sure. Apple did it too. I still have the original ][+ Monitor ROM listing somewhere. Apple listed theirs to aid hobbyists. Did IBM do the same? I would think to IBM it had more to do with copyright than aiding hackers.
        beagle3 15y ago
        They didn't do it to aid hobbyists or hackers per se. It was just standard practice at the time. Televisions, radio receivers, amplifiers, washing machines -- almost everything came with schematics. Also, at the time, IBM did not consider the PC a "serious" business - they just did the minimum possible to not lose out on a possible new market. The original PC (PC-g) and even the PC-XT were basically not much more than Intel's reference 8086 / 8088 design with not a lot of modifications -- I don't think anyone at the time (1982) thought there was much IP there anyway.

4 ms·

reminds about the IBM's "strategic mistake" of allowing BIOS clones that triggered the PC revolution.

by VladRussian 15y ago

reminds about the IBM's "strategic mistake" of allowing BIOS clones that triggered the PC revolution.

joezydeco 15y ago
Huh? IBM couldn't stop BIOS clones after they lost the Compaq lawsuit.
- VladRussian 15y ago
  Their publication of BIOS source allowed for successful "clean room" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies#History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Technologies#History Interesting history to compare with discussed in another thread Google's Java API "infringement".
  - joezydeco 15y ago
    The publication of the API allowed for clean room engineering of BIOS clones, but the publication of the IBM BIOS source was a defensive move to taint the pool of engineers that would be trying to write clones.
    - beagle3 15y ago
      The publication of the source code was not a defensive move. It predated the clones - it was a time in which it was customary to include schematics with manuals (I still have an "XT Technical Reference" at home which includes full schematics and commented bios source code.
      - joezydeco 15y ago
        Sure. Apple did it too. I still have the original ][+ Monitor ROM listing somewhere. Apple listed theirs to aid hobbyists. Did IBM do the same? I would think to IBM it had more to do with copyright than aiding hackers.
        beagle3 15y ago
        They didn't do it to aid hobbyists or hackers per se. It was just standard practice at the time. Televisions, radio receivers, amplifiers, washing machines -- almost everything came with schematics. Also, at the time, IBM did not consider the PC a "serious" business - they just did the minimum possible to not lose out on a possible new market. The original PC (PC-g) and even the PC-XT were basically not much more than Intel's reference 8086 / 8088 design with not a lot of modifications -- I don't think anyone at the time (1982) thought there was much IP there anyway.