Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!saxony!dgil
From: dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: Passing GO, etc. (was Re: OEM)
Message-ID: <325@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>
Date: 15 Aug 90 23:47:43 GMT
References: <802@beguine.UUCP> <130@thor.UUCP>
Organization: Reuter:file Inc  (A Reuter Company) Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 23

In <130@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes:
>In article <802@beguine.UUCP>, Robert.Berry@samba.acs.unc.edu (BBS Account) writes:
>> Sorry, Walt, I stand by my definition.
>Sorry, but Walt was completely correct.  The OEM is the >ORIGINAL<
>equipment manufacturer -- whoever made the thing in the first place.
>The guy that buys that product, adds value, and resells it is a VAR.

How a word originates, and what it means, can often be two different things.
I've no doubt that Larry's theory about verb-izing OEM is historically
correct, although you can get the same effect by making it an adjective:
the OEM version, the OEM market, etc.

Simple fact is, though, that if OEM retained any of its original meaning, we
could at least expect some confusion in, for instance, the industry press.
And I'm positive that every time I've heard a company called "an OEM" (at
least 15 years worth), the company was in fact a VAR.  I suspect that the
acronym has crossed the line from "abuse of the term" to "evolution of the
language" somewhere along the way.

Of course, the term was blatantly debased to begin with, since (cf. "OEM
version") it was only ever used to describe products that were sold by 
someone *besides* the original manufacturer.
                                                Dave