Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:31:34 -0400 From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: if_de.c ???? Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970512193131.00c392e0@etinc.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 02:45 PM 5/12/97 -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: >> >Actually, you seem to be complaining about the fact that using parts >> >with public specifications commoditizes the hardware. This is true, >> >but it's not a bad thing. After all, many companies make lots of >> >money selling commodity items. Like kitchen utensils. > >[ ... ] > >> >If you think DEC isn't going to sell those specs to "Joe Schmoe" in >> >order to protect SMC's market, then you have another thing coming. >> >> Horse Hockey! This is the old IBM PC problem....who is going to establish >> the market if noone can make enough margin to pay for the initial marketing? > >Actually, this isn't the IBM PC problem. > >This is the IBM PS/2 MCA problem: invent a closed interface and your >customers will go elsewhere. > >> Companies like DEC will have to make business decisions about whether >> they want to have a handful of OEMs or sell to the general public. I >> think that there will be "limited" agreements, in which the >> manufacturers of ASICs keep the specs under wraps for a year or two, >> letting the marketing companies recover their investments, and then >> flood the market for the taiwanese clone manufacturers. > >This presumes that somehow the "taiwanese clone manufacturers" can >ride on the backs of the marketing companies. This is an unlikely >scenario -- each company must do it's own marketing. What planet are you from? There are HUNDREDS of ne2000 clones that do zero marketing. Infotel and a hoard of other DEC chip clones rode SMC...now SMC is in having big problems. > >This also assumes that the company that comes out with something first >is somehow at a disadvantage... and that's what patents are for, if >they truly have unique R&D value to recoup. If not, then they are >simply milking the margin until competition commoditizes the hardware, >and then probably moving on to greener (non-commodity) pastures every >so often to keep ahead of the wave. You cant patent an interface, and with a single chip solution you dont have to make many changes to a card to copy the interface without violating any copyrights. You could have EXACTLY the same hardware layout as another card and route the traces differently and its not a violation. If you make your interface public, there are lots of ways to clone the card..you dont even have to use the same parts, but you can sell your (cheap) hardware on the public perception that the software drivers are stable. db
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970512193131.00c392e0>