Microsoft Says Do Not Use Linux
by
docstrange
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Because it is counterproductive to their business plan.
..............sigh
-- Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
I don't get it...
by
Judg3
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Intel plans on releasing a chipset that supports DDR DRAM within a month or so ANYWAY, so whats the point of this fight? Does Intel make MORE money licensing the chipsets that use their processors then the processors themselves?
To me, at least, I think it's just that Intel got a little egg on their face and is now trying to use their muscle to halt it.
-- Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
Re:Clarification
by
Your+Anus
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If Intel patented some key part of the technology, like the CPU socket (think Slot 1 & 2), or the north bridge, then Intel would make it impossible, or extremely difficult, for VIA to produce a compatible chipset without Intel's permission.
That being said, I think this is a really stupid move on Intel's part, The only reason they would be doing it is because of some agreement they still have with Rambus.
--
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
Should be safe to ignore
by
BlowCat
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I could not find any technical arguments
in the Intel's statement. It's a legal
problem between VIA and Intel.
It should be safe
to ignore this warning.
I doubt that Intel can sue users
of VIA motherboards.
Intel and Playing Hardball?
by
ackthpt
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
And we just finished all this dirty laundry of Microsoft today, too. Intel is worried that you may not have the same quality chipset, since VIA wants to do things their own way, and hasn't waited for Intel's blessing. What it really comes down to is that Via is the big dog, in Taiwan, and has tired of kowtowing to the Santa Clara based company. Intel has licensing arrangements with smaller competitors of Via, in Taiwan, and is probably just trying to extort enough money to level the playing field, as the Via chipset is a few dollars cheaper than the Intel sanctioned sets.
I'd give Via the benefit of the doubt, considering that Intel is still flapping their gums about how good RDRAM is, even after Craig Barrett put Rambus down.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:No problem Intel,
by
Drakantus
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As the story goes, when VIA purchased S3 they also acquired all the IP they need to legally produce chipsets for any intel CPU in the next so many years. Intel doesn't have much of a case.
-- I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
Warning: My competitors eat boogers!
by
gnovos
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wow, how desperate do you have to be to actually warn against a competitor by name and tell your customers not to chose them. What ever happened to advertising your products strengths as opposed to your opponents weaknesses?
Now, I am not going to say anything about Intel's products, but it is REALLY grasping a straws when the only ammunition you have is whining to your clients that your cheaper, quicker, and more savvy competition may not have it's licensing in order...
-- "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Re:The nature of Intel's relationship with Rambus
by
Grishnakh
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Intel has a contract with Rambus that if they sell a certain number of Rambus-requiring chipsets by a certain date, they get a huge pile of Rambus stock. Intel wants to push Rambus crap down their customers' throats whether they want it or not. One of Intel's Values that they give so much lip service to is "Customer Orientation". But in reality, Intel doesn't care at all about its customers, only that it can control them and milk them for extra profits.
The stats don't lie.....
by
El_Nofx
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Toms hardware proved it. This chipset works well, it is cheap, it is out first, and Intel hates it because there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.
Rambus has already sued just about every memory manufacturer for some reason or another, if Intel sues Mobo Manf. and VIA, that would look real good for the guys who started the whole rambus intel deal. Ok, we put out an inferior product that was away from the main streem and natural flow of the industry, no body bought it because it cost 3 times what everything else on the market did. It offered no real performance gain and it ended up getting us in littigation with half of the hardware companies in the country.
I would say that was pretty successful, wouldn't you?
-- It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
So the problem is?
by
Powercntrl
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If the interface used by the P4 is in fact patented, Intel is just protecting their IP as allowed under current patent law. Sure, you can have a problem with the patent laws, but then you should be attacking the patent laws, not how companies (such as Intel or Unisys) choose to use them to their advantage. Yes, Intel can take their ball and go home if they don't like how you play... If you have a problem with that, use someone else's ball or bring your own. Unisys's patenting of GIF spawned the creation of PNG, MP3 patents spawned OGG... Intel's patents got you down? Buy AMD.
--
--- DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Re:So the problem is?
by
Jay+Carlson
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And this use of the law advances the public good...how?
My meter for "be careful, somebody's trying to pull a fast one" now trips when the discussion's terminology gets "Intellectual Property" added to it. There is no such thing in the law.
There are legal mechanisms for patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trade marks, service marks (and a few others), but none of these legal mechanisms are as strong or complete as those laws related to real property. And that's as intended; real property and intellectual creations have very different characteristics.
People who are pushing the term "intellectual property" into arguments often are indicating their desire to make the legal controls[1] over information creations to be as strong or stronger than those over tangible property. So that not only means eliminating fair use and expiry, but also the creation of new categories of government control mechanisms for those things that inconveniently don't fit into the existing legal structures.
[1](Note "controls"; "protections" is another attempt to shift the terms of the debate.)
RDRAM motherboards are MUCH more difficult to design than SDRAM and DDR boards because the tolerances are much lower due to the high bus speed. RDRAM boards are in no way cheaper than SDRAM boards.
What's more, RDRAM is far more expensive to manufacture than SDRAM (aside from the stupid patent royalties) because of the way the memory is designed. SDRAMs are just simple SOJ surface-mount chips on a cheap board. RDRAMs have some other more exotic method (flip-chip?), plus a "heat speader" across all the chips because memory accesses to an RDRAM board tend to concentrate on just one chip on the board (rather than accessing them in parallel), causing that chip to heat up so much that it needs the heat speader as a heat sink.
The pincount of an RDRAM or DDR board does nothing to manufacturing cost; it's just a board with an edge connector etched on like all the other wiring, so there's no cost difference. The connector for DDR might have more pins, but that's not a huge cost increase, and with the far greater volumes of DDR that are purchased, and resultingly the far greater volumes of DDR sockets manufactured and sold, DDR sockets will cost less due to economy of scale.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it is counterproductive to their business plan.
..............sigh
Remember that you are unique, just like everybody else.
Intel plans on releasing a chipset that supports DDR DRAM within a month or so ANYWAY, so whats the point of this fight? Does Intel make MORE money licensing the chipsets that use their processors then the processors themselves?
To me, at least, I think it's just that Intel got a little egg on their face and is now trying to use their muscle to halt it.
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!
That being said, I think this is a really stupid move on Intel's part, The only reason they would be doing it is because of some agreement they still have with Rambus.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
I could not find any technical arguments in the Intel's statement. It's a legal problem between VIA and Intel. It should be safe to ignore this warning. I doubt that Intel can sue users of VIA motherboards.
I'd give Via the benefit of the doubt, considering that Intel is still flapping their gums about how good RDRAM is, even after Craig Barrett put Rambus down.
Meanwhile, Rambus failure to overturn on appeal the SDRAM fraud charge is blowing up in their face with a slough of shareholder class action suits.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
As the story goes, when VIA purchased S3 they also acquired all the IP they need to legally produce chipsets for any intel CPU in the next so many years. Intel doesn't have much of a case.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
Wow, how desperate do you have to be to actually warn against a competitor by name and tell your customers not to chose them. What ever happened to advertising your products strengths as opposed to your opponents weaknesses?
Now, I am not going to say anything about Intel's products, but it is REALLY grasping a straws when the only ammunition you have is whining to your clients that your cheaper, quicker, and more savvy competition may not have it's licensing in order...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Intel has a contract with Rambus that if they sell a certain number of Rambus-requiring chipsets by a certain date, they get a huge pile of Rambus stock. Intel wants to push Rambus crap down their customers' throats whether they want it or not. One of Intel's Values that they give so much lip service to is "Customer Orientation". But in reality, Intel doesn't care at all about its customers, only that it can control them and milk them for extra profits.
Toms hardware proved it. This chipset works well, it is cheap, it is out first, and Intel hates it because there isn't a damn thing they can do about it.
Rambus has already sued just about every memory manufacturer for some reason or another, if Intel sues Mobo Manf. and VIA, that would look real good for the guys who started the whole rambus intel deal. Ok, we put out an inferior product that was away from the main streem and natural flow of the industry, no body bought it because it cost 3 times what everything else on the market did. It offered no real performance gain and it ended up getting us in littigation with half of the hardware companies in the country.
I would say that was pretty successful, wouldn't you?
It's not the OS it's the user that sucks. If it's user friendly, you get stupider people. - clinko
If the interface used by the P4 is in fact patented, Intel is just protecting their IP as allowed under current patent law. Sure, you can have a problem with the patent laws, but then you should be attacking the patent laws, not how companies (such as Intel or Unisys) choose to use them to their advantage. Yes, Intel can take their ball and go home if they don't like how you play... If you have a problem with that, use someone else's ball or bring your own. Unisys's patenting of GIF spawned the creation of PNG, MP3 patents spawned OGG... Intel's patents got you down? Buy AMD.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Sorry, no.
RDRAM motherboards are MUCH more difficult to design than SDRAM and DDR boards because the tolerances are much lower due to the high bus speed. RDRAM boards are in no way cheaper than SDRAM boards.
What's more, RDRAM is far more expensive to manufacture than SDRAM (aside from the stupid patent royalties) because of the way the memory is designed. SDRAMs are just simple SOJ surface-mount chips on a cheap board. RDRAMs have some other more exotic method (flip-chip?), plus a "heat speader" across all the chips because memory accesses to an RDRAM board tend to concentrate on just one chip on the board (rather than accessing them in parallel), causing that chip to heat up so much that it needs the heat speader as a heat sink.
The pincount of an RDRAM or DDR board does nothing to manufacturing cost; it's just a board with an edge connector etched on like all the other wiring, so there's no cost difference. The connector for DDR might have more pins, but that's not a huge cost increase, and with the far greater volumes of DDR that are purchased, and resultingly the far greater volumes of DDR sockets manufactured and sold, DDR sockets will cost less due to economy of scale.