Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jan 2010 23:31 UTC, submitted by jebb
Thread beginning with comment 405261
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-11-04
I don't get the point he's making about IBM licensing core PC technology. Does he mean the fact that IBM licensed MS-DOS from Microsoft? Because IBM did not license core PC technology to anybody else. And nowhere in the wikipedia article he cites does it say so. IBM used an open architecture so others could build periphery without a license. They also used off-the-shelf hardware. Not any different to Apple today (I would also venture to say that apple products would by far not be as popular if it wasn't possible to build use standard periphery).
The reason IBM lost control over the PC was because Compaq reverse-engineered the BIOS. Now other companies could take the same hardware components and build a PC themselves. Nothing to do with licensing.