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.
IBM never "owned" the PC business. Apples always owned the "Mac" business - that is a big part of the problem. I am working on a machine that is a descendant of an IBM clone - still waiting for those Mac clones.
The reason is that no one could produce PC-compatible hardware without the BIOS to tie it all together.
That statement is false. From the beginning IBM allowed third parties to create hardware for the IBM PC (monitors, printers, video cards, memory, hard drives, various bus cards, pretty much every piece of hardware in the IBM PC). (this was not true of the Mac in its first 10 years or more)
The only thing IBM would not allow to be produced was the software in the bios.
I think your confusion comes from a misunderstanding of what hardware is - you seem to think hardware only refers to the complete computer in totality.
The reason is that no one could produce PC-compatible hardware without the BIOS to tie it all together.
Another completely false statement. Tons of PC-compatible hardware was produced and that is what IBM wanted. Printers, monitors, bus cards, memory, hard drives - all hardware and all legally produced from the beginning of the IBM PC. The only thing that could not be produced is a copy of the software bios and because of this nobody could copy the entire computer system (until the software bios was conquered)
You're trying to make an argument out of semantics when I wasn't trying to be too careful about my actual wording.
Compaq reverse-engineered the software not the hardware. Compaq was free to make PC-compatible hardware until the cows came home - what they could not do was copy the software bios and created a complete copy of the computer system until they reverse-engineered the software bios.
Yes, they didn't reverse-engineer hardware, but software/firmware. But this is what freed the hardware.
Not true. It freed them to make copies of the complete computer system - the hardware was freed from the state (unlike the Mac). Like I said - your confusion comes from a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word hardware.
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.
That was true maybe 15 years ago
Modern PC's pretty much have no connection to IBM. Nothing IBM came up with still exists - the bus is different, chip architecture is different, file formats are different. IBM is part of the linage but in computer terms it is like a great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather (very little modern relevance)