So that line does not trace back to IBM in any way, besides, Intel isn't IBM.
eh.. sorta.[0].
IBM had significant stake in Intel during the time period we're talking about, and that whole period was filled with anti-trust talk, which turned into actual anti-trust fire a few years later in the 90s.
I may not have been blunt enough in my other comment, but I was alluding to the idea that IBM and Intel may have been involved in anti-competitive behavior against Acorn, which caused them to innovate in such a way that created the systems we enjoy today (modern mobile). The idea that the pressures on the company spawned innovation.
'Was the cause of a complete redevelopment' is the polar opposite of 'can be traced back to' whatever ugly dealings IBM and Intel may have had (which doesn't surprise me one bit).
eh.. sorta.[0].
IBM had significant stake in Intel during the time period we're talking about, and that whole period was filled with anti-trust talk, which turned into actual anti-trust fire a few years later in the 90s.
I may not have been blunt enough in my other comment, but I was alluding to the idea that IBM and Intel may have been involved in anti-competitive behavior against Acorn, which caused them to innovate in such a way that created the systems we enjoy today (modern mobile). The idea that the pressures on the company spawned innovation.
[0]: http://articles.latimes.com/1987-08-29/business/fi-1393_1_in...