Did you read what you just wrote? You are claiming IBM had a lock on the HARDWARE because of the SOFTWARE. IBM did not have a lock on the hardware and they did that BY DESIGN. IBM wanted lots of people to create hardware add-ons for their computer so the hardware architecture of the IBM PC is an open standard just like the Apple II. IBM thought they could avoid clones by making the bios proprietary (just like the Apple II and they had Apple vs. Franklin to back up this belief).
The problem here is you are trying to change the subject. You claimed IBM tried to have a stranglehold on the HARWARE but Compaq reverse-engineered it. You are wrong. Compaq did not reverse-engineered ANY hardware. None. Compaq reverse-engineered the bios which is software. IBM never tried to have a stranglehold on the hardware but they did make proprietary software - the bios. HINT: the computer itself is not the only piece of hardware in a computer system. Contrast this with Mac. Apple had a stranglehold on the hardware for many many years. They would not release the architecture therefore nobody except Apple could make parts for the Mac. They later abandoned this strategy after they lost most of their market share
No matter how off-the-shelf the parts were, or how the BIOS was stored, they were useless as a PC without that BIOS.
You are merely saying a computer is useless without software . No kidding. You have missed the point again. Peripherals are hardware and IBM wanted everybody to make peripherals. I BM did not what people to make copies of the entire computer but they did not do this by making the hardware proprietary - they did it by making bios (software) proprietary. Apple made the Mac hardware proprietary - thus the one-company, one-computer, one-fuhrer model
Bottom line (and the only point I was trying to make). The following statement from you is incorrect:
Somebody: No wonder. IBM didn't hold a stranglehold on the hardware.
antiRepublicrat: Actually, IBM tried that, but Compaq reverse-engineered it.
As I pointed out - you are wrong. Compaq did not reverse-engineer any hardware.
I know it's tough to grasp, so I'll try it again. IBM owned the PC business just as Apple owns the Mac business. The reason is that no one could produce PC-compatible hardware without the BIOS to tie it all together. Therefore, IBM had a lock on PC hardware. They didn't have a lock on the parts that make a PC (as Apple doesn't have a lock on individual parts of a Mac), but the hardware system was closed because IBM wouldn't license the BIOS.
You claimed IBM tried to have a stranglehold on the HARWARE but Compaq reverse-engineered it.
You're trying to make an argument out of semantics when I wasn't trying to be too careful about my actual wording. Yes, they didn't reverse-engineer hardware, but software/firmware. But this is what freed the hardware.
However, this brings up another interesting point. If Golden Eagle were consistently angry at clones and knock-offs as he's always ranting against Linux about, he'd be trashing every PC except for those that were actually made by IBM.