Don't be a bozo. All we have here is semantics. This is a text-based forum. All we can do on Freerepublic is to try and understand the meaning of the language that is posted (that is the definition of semantics).
No one could produce a PC without IBM's permission.
Now you are changing your story. This is what you said earlier: no one could produce PC-compatible hardware
As I stated earlier, that is a factually incorrect statement. Now that you have changed your story, you are correct. Nobody could copy the entire computer systems without the bios. The term hardware is not limited to the entire computer system. Like I said, I think your confusion comes from not fully understanding the word hardware.
I think you need to play semantics more often because you can not make up your own meanings for words and expect it to make sense.
Compaq reverse-engineered the software not the hardware.
And, surprise, yet again you harp on semantics
Now you are just plain silly. Differentiating between Hardware and Software is just semantics - whatever - guess you can just call it Shardware. Without semantics, communication is impossible (and you seem hellbent on proving this)
It's a clear sign that you're losing and want to avoid the main point when all you can do is argue the semantics around the subject.
First you argue it is wrong to be held to the real meanings of words and then you do a victory dance. pathetic.
I guess you want a world where words have not fixed meaning and no statement can be factually incorrect because that would mean words have meaning and when words have meaning...well...that's just a semantic war.
I can sum your arguement up this way: It all depends on the meaning of the word 'is'
Good, then try to understand, rather than nit-picking at terminology, sending the discussion off on an irrelevant tangent.
I guess you want a world where words have not fixed meaning
This is English, you know, made worse since we're talking about an ever-changing subject such as computers.