Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!aglew
From: aglew@crhc.uiuc.edu (Andy Glew)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: In What Sense is Sun the "First" Open Systems Manufacturer?
Message-ID: <AGLEW.90Nov21153249@cobra.crhc.uiuc.edu>
Date: 21 Nov 90 23:32:49 GMT
References: <AGLEW.90Nov15214625@lasso.crhc.uiuc.edu>
	<1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu>
	<ROLAND.90Nov19160821@lolly.Stanford.EDU>
	<EGDORF.90Nov20102032@zaphod.lanl.gov>
	<1990Nov20.195623.28061@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <2940@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
	<1990Nov21.194240.28
Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing University of
	Illinois at Urbana Champaign
Lines: 12
In-Reply-To: andy@Theory.Stanford.EDU's message of 21 Nov 90 19:42:40 GMT

>Either IBM's lawyers are worse than almost every other manufacturers,
>or IBM allowed the 360/370 clone makers to exist.  Sun helps more, but
>that's a difference of degree.

IBM being under the shadow of an anti-trust prosecution at the time
certainly help motivate IBM not to pursue the clone makers.

Also, in Europe an anti-trust decision required IBM to provide
technical details of their I/O system interface to clone makers.

--
Andy Glew, a-glew@uiuc.edu [get ph nameserver from uxc.cso.uiuc.edu:net/qi]