Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!bu.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!shamash!clc5q
From: clc5q@shamash.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.141449.420@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 25 Oct 90 14:14:49 GMT
References: <2780@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: clc5q@shamash.cs.Virginia.EDU (Clark L. Coleman)
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Lines: 28


 
 >  a) Intel has more than one fab line if one fails

Irrelevant.

 >  b) Intel is not likely to fold financially

Irrelevant.

 >  c) IBM has the right to manufacture the 386.

Irrelevant.


The quoted poster seems to have no understanding of the second sourcing
issue that was raised concerning the choice of the 8088 for the IBM PC.
The primary problem is the threat of monopoly pricing. The 80386 rights
were obtained by IBM as a hedge against this threat. But this was years
after the IBM PC was introduced.

The AMD second sourcing was a valuable assurance to IBM and all future
clone makers. Intel having multiple fabs and being in good health say
nothing about the fear of Intel monopoly pricing. Which we see today
with the 80386 and 80486, by the way, which are not second sourced.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We cannot talk of freedom unless we have private property." -- Gavriil Popov,
Mayor of Moscow, September 11, 1990. |||  clc5q@virginia.edu