cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (04/16/87)
IBM has come out with some new computers that they hope will be unclonable at least partly because they use custom chips. My understanding is that somebody could examine the chips to see how they worked and then make their own, I think this is called "reverse engineering". The problem with this is that it would violate IBM's copyrights. A comparable problem was with the BIOS on IBM's pcs. Eventually, companies hired programmers who had never seen the BIOS to write a BIOS that performed the same functions and this was considered a legal thing to do. I suppose therefore, that a company could design chips from scratch that would perform the same way as IBM's chips. I am a software type and may be hopelessly naive about what's involved. I've read that silicon compilers and other design tools are making it easier and easier to design chips, is this kind of project still unthinkably difficult? Also, it's been suggested that IBM may have put features in the chips that they aren't telling anyone about, so that if somebody sweated blood and came out with chips that performed the known functions, suddenly IBM would announce new capabilities. Maybe one party has to look inside the chips to see what else may be there, and then advise another party what kinds of things to check out, without being so specific that they would violate copyright info, the second party would then analyze the chips as black boxes before trying to roll their own. Another clone discouraging factor is supposed to be that IBM has designed their new computers so that it can make them very cheaply, however the price seems to be high. I suppose this is so IBM has a lot of latitude for price cutting if necessary. I guess, what I'm wondering is, "how unclonable are the new IBM's?". I've never owned or worked with any IBM computers, or even clones of IBM computers, but I am interested in how the micro-computer market and products may evolve. I have this vague feeling that it would be a bad thing (or is a bad thing) that one company should dominate a market or industry too much. That's a subject for a different article however. Regards, Carl Weidling
doug@edge.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (04/20/87)
> 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, Arizonafarren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) (04/22/87)
To the best of my knowledge (incomplete, I admit), there are four factors
which impinge on the "clonability" of the new IBM PS/2 computers:
1. The new VGA graphics hardware. This is not unclonable, it will just
take a little time to get equivalent graphics adapters and monitors
out to the general market. Probably six months, max.
2. The new ABIOS/CBIOS code. Again, not unclonable (I've heard rumors
that say the first clone will appear in about a month!).
3. ESDI disk drives. Easily cloned, but nobody's doing it yet. Needs
new disk controllers, and fully efficient operation may depend on:
4. "Microchannel" bus architecture. This is probably what's going to make
the new machines stand alone for quite a while. A large part of the
superiority that the new machines offer is in this bus, which is much
more efficient than the older PC bus. That bus was, essentially, just
a direct tie to the processor address/data/control lines. The new bus
is much more sophisticated, with a considerable amount of support
circuitry, all of which IBM is bent on protecting. Patents galore have
been applied for, and an official IBM spokesman has said "If you're going
to try and copy us, you should know that IBM has a lot of money for
lawyer's fees." (Paraphrase)
So, not unclonable, but it'll take a while before the cloners can come up to
the performance standards and still keep the prices down.
--
----------------
"... if the church put in half the time on covetousness
Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..."
hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (04/24/87)
In article <766@vaxwaller.UUCP> cw@vaxwaller.UUCP (Carl Weidling) writes: > Also, it's been suggested that IBM may have put features in the chips that > they aren't telling anyone about, so that if somebody sweated blood and came > out with chips that performed the known functions, suddenly IBM would > announce new capabilities. Imagine the following scenario. Clone Computer Corp sweats blood as you say and comes up with a machine functionally equivalent to the new IBM box as we know it today. CCC starts selling their box for half what big blue charges. Big blue cuts their price, and so does CCC. Both sell lots of boxes. Lots of software companies start writing code which runs on both IBM's box and CCC's. Then IBM announces "But wait, there's more! We didn't tell you this before but that IBM box you bought also can do X!" What do the software companies do? If they take advantage of the "new" feature, they get a better product which they can sell to the folks who shelled out double dollars for the authentic IBM box. On the other hand, if the pretend that the feature doesn't exist, they get to keep selling software to all the people who bought clones. What would you do? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 "you can't spell deoxyribonucleic without unix!"
thorinn@diku.UUCP (04/27/87)
I was told (by a salesperson, but it still may contain some truth) that one of the main obstacles to making a fully compatible clone was this: When you use a System/2 as terminal equipment against an IBM mainframe, one of the commands in the protocol says "Please send the copyright message in your ROM;" the mainframe checks this against whatever it is on a System/2, and won't communicate if it's not the same. This would prevent the use of clones with IBM terminal software, unless the cloners can find an excuse to have a verbatim copy of IBM's copyright message in their ROMs; of course they could reverse engineer the software as well, but this may put a cramp in their style. "Yes, sir, OUR machine runs ALL IBM software... ehrm, but if you want to talk to a mainframe, you have to use ours, because theirs wont lie." -- Lars Mathiesen, DIKU, U of Copenhagen, Denmark ..mcvax!diku!thorinn Institute of Datalogy -- we're scientists, not engineers.
wesommer@bloom-beacon.UUCP (04/29/87)
In article <3087@diku.UUCP> thorinn@diku.UUCP (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) writes: > I was told (by a salesperson, but it still may contain some truth) that one >of the main obstacles to making a fully compatible clone was this: > When you use a System/2 as terminal equipment against an IBM mainframe, one >of the commands in the protocol says "Please send the copyright message in >your ROM;" the mainframe checks this against whatever it is on a System/2, >and won't communicate if it's not the same. That's real nice of them. I guess that makes the copyright message part of the communications protocol. Does this also mean that everything else sent as part of the login session becomes copyrighted by IBM, and that the software on the other end is violating copyright law by stripping out the message?? Get real! > This would prevent the use of clones with IBM terminal software, unless the >cloners can find an excuse to have a verbatim copy of IBM's copyright message >in their ROMs; of course they could reverse engineer the software as well, >but this may put a cramp in their style. How about this: Embed the following message in the ROM: Copyright (C) 1987 Clonz-R-Us. We did this one ourselves with no help from Big Blue - It's not Copyright (C) 1987 IBM. All rights reserved. where "Copyright (C) 1987 IBM. All rights reserved." is the string one needs to include in the protocol... and only send the last part over. Bill Sommerfeld ARPA: wesommer@athena.mit.edu UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!wesommer
tim@cit-vlsi.Caltech.Edu (Timothy L. Kay) (04/30/87)
In article <489@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes: >In article <3087@diku.UUCP> thorinn@diku.UUCP (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) writes: >> When you use a System/2 as terminal equipment against an IBM mainframe, one >>of the commands in the protocol says "Please send the copyright message in >>your ROM;" the mainframe checks this against whatever it is on a System/2, >>and won't communicate if it's not the same. >How about this: Embed the following message in the ROM: > >Copyright (C) 1987 Clonz-R-Us. We did this one ourselves with no help >from Big Blue - It's not Copyright (C) 1987 IBM. All rights reserved. > >where "Copyright (C) 1987 IBM. All rights reserved." is the string >one needs to include in the protocol... and only send the last part over. The problem here is that the software will look in a fixed place in the ROM. So, you have to have the IBM copyright notice in the correct place. Is there a legal reason that people can't put this there? Here is a work around: Put an encrypted version of the IBM copyright notice in the correct place in the ROM, and have a circuit in the clone that decrypts just that part of the ROM when a certain bit is set. So, the defacto ROM contains only gibberish. However, before you run the IBM'd program, you have to turn on the decryption.
mahar@weitek.UUCP (Mike Mahar) (05/01/87)
There is a concept in the U.S. called restraint of trade. A corporation
can't require a copyright notice to be an integral part of the function
of a machine. A competitor would simply put the copyright notice in
his machine because it is required to make it work. If IBM objects
on copyright infringements there is a good case that the intent of the
copyright is to restrain compitition. A court would likely rule that
the copyright is now part of the communications protocol and therefore
in the public domain. A copyright lawyer told me this when I was at
another company and we were considering somthing like that. I doubt
IBM whould risk loosing their copyright notice to the public domain or
the possible punitive action resulting from obvious restraint of trade.
--
Mike Mahar
UUCP: {turtlevax, cae780}!weitek!mahar
Disclaimer: The above opinions are, in fact, not opinions.
They are facts.aegl@root.co.uk (Tony Luck) (05/02/87)
Can't you just include the copyright string in some unintelligible character set (e.g. ascii) and convert it to ebcdic when talking to the mainframe... or use rev(1) [I've been trying to think of a use for rev] thus: MBI 7891 thgirypoC or rot13 it: Pbclevtug 1987 VOZ or whatever you like.
steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (05/02/87)
> In article <3087@diku.UUCP> thorinn@diku.UUCP (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) writes: > > I was told (by a salesperson, but it still may contain some truth) that one > >of the main obstacles to making a fully compatible clone was this: > > When you use a System/2 as terminal equipment against an IBM mainframe, one > >of the commands in the protocol says "Please send the copyright message in > >your ROM;" the mainframe checks this against whatever it is on a System/2, > >and won't communicate if it's not the same. The current software doesn't do that, and trying that sort of bull would also freeze out older IBM (blue) machines... (then again -- IBM just might be that stupid...). Also: It would only be software written BY IBM that would do things like that. Tell me: How many programs actually written by IBM do you have?? (Hint: MS-DOS was written by Microsoft.) -- ------------- Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha! {ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve
apn@nonvon.UUCP (root) (05/04/87)
in article <313@attila.weitek.UUCP>, mahar@weitek.UUCP (Mike Mahar) says: > > There is a concept in the U.S. called restraint of trade. A corporation > can't require a copyright notice to be an integral part of the function > of a machine. A competitor would simply put the copyright notice in > his machine because it is required to make it work. If IBM objects > on copyright infringements there is a good case that the intent of the Does this apply to the fact that certain software by a very large DOS oriented company requires parts of copyright notices be present in the firmware of the machine in order to operate ? -- UUCP: {ihnp4,ames,qantel,sun,seismo,amdahl,lll-crg,pyramid}!ptsfa!nonvon!apn {* Only those who attempt the absurd ... will achieve the impossible *} {* I think... I think it's in my basement... Let me go upstairs and check. *} {* -escher *}
thorinn@diku.UUCP (Lars Henrik Mathiesen) (05/04/87)
In article <279@root44.co.uk> aegl@root.co.uk (Tony Luck) writes: >Can't you just include the copyright string in some unintelligible character >set (e.g. ascii) and convert it to ebcdic when talking to the mainframe... Please note that an UNMODIFIED IBM comm. program must be able to find it! -- Lars Mathiesen, DIKU, U of Copenhagen, Denmark ..mcvax!diku!thorinn Institute of Datalogy -- we're scientists, not engineers.
tyler@drivax.UUCP (William Tyler) (05/07/87)
In article <2522@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> tim@cit-vlsi.UUCP (Timothy L. Kay) writes: >Here is a work around: Put an encrypted version of the IBM copyright >notice in the correct place in the ROM, and have a circuit in the clone >that decrypts just that part of the ROM when a certain bit is set. So, >the defacto ROM contains only gibberish. However, before you run the >IBM'd program, you have to turn on the decryption. I doubt very much if encrypting a message gets you around copyright laws. If it did, I could do something as simple as encrypting the entire IBM ROM, and attaching a decrypter to the output. The encryption could theoretically be as simple as adding a constant to each byte, modulo 256, or reversing the sense of certain bits. This sort of foolishness has to be covered by copyright law. -- Bill Tyler ... {seismo,hplabs,sun,ihnp4}!amdahl!drivax!tyler
jda@mas1.UUCP (James Allen) (05/09/87)
Bill Tyler writes- > I doubt very much if encrypting a message gets you around copyright laws. > If it did, I could do something as simple as encrypting the entire IBM ROM, > and attaching a decrypter to the output. The encryption could theoretically > be as simple as adding a constant to each byte, modulo 256, or reversing > the sense of certain bits. This sort of foolishness has to be covered by > copyright law. Any case history? I have been curious about this point since I noticed that a major database package for the PC incorporated a large encrypted fragment of the IBM ROM BIOS code. (this plagiarism seemed ironic since the software displayed a self-serving message about property rights every time it was loaded.) The purpose of the encryption seemed to be to hamper disassembly, breakpoints etc. (it was part of a copy protection system and several unplagiarized routines were encrypted also) rather than to counter IBM's copyright. Not wanting to debase anyone, no mention of the origin of this fvaulty software. James D. Allen
dyer@atari.UUCP (Landon Dyer) (05/09/87)
Pretend you're a fascist piece of software checking for a string like:
"(C)1987 HugeCorp, All Rights Reserved. Violators will
be drawn, quartered and fed to diseased orangutangs."
What do you do when it turns 1988 or 1990, and the next revision of
the BIOS comes around? Does your copyright-checking subroutine
handle arbitrary lists of dates?
In which case, what is the legal standing of a (bogus) copyright
message like:
"(C)2099 HugeCorp, All Rights ..."
Do we wait until 2099 to go to court?
--
-Landon Dyer, Atari Corporation {sun,amdcad,lll-lcc,imagen}!atari!dyer
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those SEGMENTS
of Atari or the AI software that has taken over my brain. ARE FOR
Yow! I am waiting for my warranty-expired interrupt! WORMS