Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mimsy!oddjob!hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!edge!doug
From: doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Cloning the new IBMs without violating copyrights
Message-ID: <662@edge.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Apr-87 12:30:51 EST
Article-I.D.: edge.662
Posted: Mon Apr 20 12:30:51 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Apr-87 06:10:23 EST
References: <766@vaxwaller.UUCP>
Organization: Edge Computer Corporation, Scottsdale, AZ
Lines: 25
Keywords: silicon compilers reverse engineering

> I guess, what I'm wondering is, "how unclonable are the new IBM's?".

This question seems to assume that the new System/2 is supposed to be
"unclonable".  I've read probably a dozen different reports on System/2,
and none of them suggest that they are uncloneable.

There seems to be a wide-spread misunderstanding that System/2 is supposed
to be a new generation of PCs.  On the contrary, System/2 is a new
generation of 3270-type computer terminals (and here we thought IBM was
just being nice when they developed SNA LU6.2).  Unlike all previous members
of the 3270 family, System/2 has some stand-alone computing capability
(we shouldn't be surprised that it is PC-DOS compatible).

What gives IBM the strong edge here is that they essentially monopolize the
mainframe end of the communications software (VTAM, BTAM, TCAM), and they
have a very strong presence in the terminal controller area as well (3274,
3276).  Communications software *has* to be compatible with the software
at the other end, so IBM will have a significant club in beating off anyone
else who would develop System/2 communications software.

Since IBM will be developing all of the S/2 comm software, they certainly
will have no incentive to avoid using any quirks of the S/2 hardware that
they know of ;-).

-- Doug Pardee -- Edge Computer Corp. -- Scottsdale, Arizona