April 2 will be the first birthday of the Personal System/2,
International Business Machine Corp.`s newest line of personal computers. And not a single low-cost copycat machine, known in the industry as a clone, has appeared to crash the party.
But everybody knows they`re out there. The audience is waiting for that perfect moment when The Creature, in whatever form it may take, bursts onto the scene. In the computer industry, just like a good movie, timing is everything.
The favorite rumor is that Tandy Corp., one of the sharks that nibbled away at IBM`s market share for its earlier PC standard, is ready to go with a PS/2 clone and that the announcement date could be very close to the PS/2 anniversary. April 4 has been pinpointed repeatedly.
”I think Tandy will miss a big opportunity if it doesn`t just go ahead and do it,” said Richard Shaffer, an industry analyst and editor of Technologic Computer Letter. ”Anybody else has to face the fact that retailers are hesitant to be the first to carry the clones, in case IBM sues up and down the line. Tandy doesn`t have to care; it has its own retail channel (Radio Shack stores). But this has truly turned into an `after you, Alfonse` type of market. Nobody wants to be first.”
Tandy seems to agree.
”Every major player on the market is developing some kind of PS/2 compatible strategy,” said marketing director Ed Juge. ”If and when our customers want it, we will absolutely give it to them.
”The real question is one of timing,” he added. ”I`m very doubtful that we`ll be the first ones.”
The rub, for many, is litigation. They back away from the prospect of going up against IBM and its battalions of lawyers.
Since the new line was introduced, IBM has indicated that it will fight to protect the proprietary parts of its architecture. But IBM also has indicated it believes that legal clones of its Micro Channel Architecture are not only possible but also inevitable.
The Micro Channel is the touchy part of the PS/2 line. It is a new bus design. In a computer, a bus is more of a highway than a vehicle. It is the pathway that electrical signals must take to carry information between various parts of the system. The new design is used only in the more advanced PS/2 models, the 50, 60 and 80.
IBM also has indicated it might be open to licensing some parts of its design. It appears many companies have queried IBM, but no license has been approved.
”IBM has more or less said that cloning can be done legally, but we aren`t going to help you do it,” Shaffer added. ”The licensing issue is even murkier. They are saying `bring what you have to us, and we will tell you if it is legal or not.` ”
”If IBM made it clear they wanted to talk PS/2 licenses, I would be on the next flight to White Plains (N.Y.),” said Andy Czernek, vice president of sales and marketing at Zenith Data Systems in Glenview. In the meantime, Zenith will say only that it is ”looking at what we can do and how we can do it.”
Engineers say it is not difficult to develop something with an equivalent function to the Micro Channel without copying it-except that no one knows all that it can do. Legally, the problems run deeper.
”The legal issue is, how far can you go to be compatible,” said Richard Bernacchi, a Los Angeles attorney specializing in computer law.
”The belief is that IBM has applied for some patents for some portions of its architecture,” he said. ”But that`s a secret process and nobody will really be able to analyze the impact until they are issued. Even if you work around the technology, if you embody the concepts, you could still be subject to infringements,” he said.
”Until all the patents are issued, everybody is operating at risk and treading with caution,” he said. ”Of course you can always challenge a patent on the grounds that the technology is not inventive enough, but that`s a long, expensive process.”
Compatible makers won`t admit that legal hassles have them tied in knots. They prefer, like Compaq Computer Corp., to say they have seen no overwhelming demand for the new designs from their customers.
”We don`t believe there is a legal problem,” said Tandy`s Juge. ”We don`t think IBM ever wants to be in the position of looking like it is trying to restrict competition.”
At Chips & Technologies Inc., San Jose, Calif., the attitude about IBM`s approach to the legal questions is more laid-back. Chips & Technologies has developed a set of chips that supposedly does what the Micro Channel can do. The company says a number of its customers have systems built around the chips and ready to be introduced.
”Of course, we recommend to all our customers that they discuss licensing with IBM before they use our chips to build a clone,” said Chips legal counsel Mark Jones. He indicated that he has heard of none of them obtaining a license.
”Our own discussions with IBM about licensing have been positive and nonadversarial,” he added. ”We hope to have everything resolved in the near future.”
”We`ve received no negative signs from IBM as far as allowing us to proliferate,” said Judy Owens, a vice president at Chips.
After all, she said, it is to IBM`s advantage to make the PS/2 more of a household word.
”We believe IBM has not been selling in huge volume because everybody is waiting to see if it becomes a standard,” she said. ”If IBM tries to hurt clonemakers, it is going to hurt the PC architecture in its war against the Macintosh.”
Sales of the advanced models of PS/2, which contain the Micro Channel, have been slow, according to most industry analysts. But that`s largely because the new machines are bucking an installed base of 11 million or 12 million older standard machines with a different design.
Though software compatibility does not appear to be an overwhelming issue, the fact that many popular peripherals and add-on boards physically do not fit into the new design is.
Furthermore, most of the benefits of the new bus design are not apparent. Users are wondering why they should switch to it and may find it even harder to trust clones.
”The future promise is that the Micro Channel will make it possible to run new types of boards that are more efficient for communications or graphics, if third-party developers come up with them,” said Julian Horwich, executive director of the Chicago Association for Microcomputer Professionals, which has nearly 500 members in the Midwest.
”If somebody makes a clone and we plug in the boards that work in IBM machines and they work in the clones, that`s one thing,” he said.
”But what about future boards? Have we tested all that`s in there yet?
The real promise of Micro Channel hasn`t been proven yet.”
There is some fear that if the Micro Channel is made up of a lot of IBM designed and built components, that cloning could be moot, because it may be hard to undercut IBM`s pricing, certainly to the extent that prices were slashed in the earlier PC line.
”All this talk about proprietary elements in the (Micro Channel) is absolute nonsense,” said Czernek.
”There is a fair degree of sophistication in design in putting together the (Micro Channel) product and designing a higher performance. But the parts are not proprietary designs.”
He added the real issue is how cost competitive the products will be if licensing fees are required.
”Already, (Micro Channel) products don`t compare very well to the IBM PC AT model (currently in widespread use) at a cost level,” Czernek said.
”I don`t know what kind of an issue pricing will be,” said Juge.
