Intel shouldn't do this...
by
krogoth
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I take it their main product aimed at desktop systems is CPUs, not chipsets. Right now they are trying to cut their CPU off from another part of the market so they can sell more chipsets later - reducing the sales of their main product for the benefit of a secondary product.
--
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Clarification
by
kiscica
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
By which I mean, 'could be prevented from doing so solely by taking legal measures'. Obviously, they could be obstructed if Intel refused to release some necessary technical information to them, and that would be perfectly legal for Intel to do, but if Via has already come into possession of all the necessary information by legal means (i.e. publicly available specs, or reverse engineering) then they can build all they like. Which means that computer companies should feel free to use their chipsets, as long as they haven't signed any agreement with Intel not to use unlicensed products. I can't see that Intel would have any grounds to sue Via unless an actual agreement were violated.
By the way, HTML preview seems to be broken now.
kiscica
A couple thoughts
by
Brad+Wilson
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
First, to those who wonder exactly how it is that Intel can limit things that interface with the P4... they use patents to prevent it. By patenting the interface into the P4, nobody can use it without licensing the patent.
Second, I wouldn't believe either side yet. Lawyers have a tendency to slightly over-react. If motherboards come out and you get one, don't worry about it. You won't be liable for using the supposed "renegade" technology. Of course, IANAL, so everything I said was a lie.:):)
3 boxes in my home office. All Athlons. I don't dislike Intel; I just dislike Intel's pricing.
License to be compatible?
by
Frater+219
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Just to clarify the headline: Intel is not "warning" people that using the VIA chipset is dangerous -- that it might harm their Pentium 4 processors -- but rather that they wish it were illegal. A quote from the article:
"They are not licensed to sell products that are compatible with the Pentium 4," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said.
Mr. Malloy and his superiors apparently believe that they have "intellectual property" not only in their patents, but also in devices they may have never seen which interoperate with their patents. I believe that this idea was settled in Nintendo v. Galoob, the "Game Genie" case, in which Galoob's right to create a device that interoperated with the NES game console (and which modified the behavior of the latter, no less!) was upheld.
Re:No problem Intel,
by
Dancin_Santa
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Could it be possible that the Intel-S3 licensing agreement barred the transfer of IP rights?
Does anyone know?
Dancin Santa
Licencing, P4 bundles with Rdram, and stupid Intel
by
jabagi
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
There is a short explanation from a VIA executive about the legal threats in Tom's Hardware Guide. Via is basicly saying that they will cover any legal fees board manufacters might be liable to pay to Intel for manufacturing Via's new chipset. It seems that Via is expecting a huge amount of profit from this new chipset.
I also have a question for those in the US. Can you buy single P4 chipsets without Rdram? When P4 came out here they only sold them with Rdram bundles, but now they actually sell P4s and their RDrams seperately. What they do is take out the Rdram that came in a P4 box and sell them seperately. I wonder if that's legal...
BTW, I am actually beginning to hate Intel. I never liked them since I have known about AMD and some of Intel's monopolisctic tactics but it gets very annonying to hear them sue or slander some other company or technology every week.
I know it's sort of meaningless to ask legal questions on/. but I'll ask anyway: Could I for example build a fan specificly designed for P4s without Intel's consent? Would I get sued? Just because Intel has filed patents?! I mean Via must have produced its own cpu interface for P4. Other than that, it's just the number and the layout of the CPU pins they are using. Intel's gonna sue Via because of this?!!? Can somebody explain?
-- Can someone tell me what this "Sig" box is for??
Rather than RDRAM, get excited about the much more scalable multi-channel low-end solutions which are appearing in the pipeline, the first of which will be the nforce. It dual-channels, but one can imagine quad-channeling, octo-channeling, etc. Exciting times.
VIA is not the only one
by
mamba-mamba
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
VIA is not the only one.
Intel appears to be essentially on the warpath against chipset makers. Well, there is at least one chipset maker which seems to have Intel's approval (maybe Intel is going to buy them. heh,heh), but it appears that Intel is refusing to license the P4 bus technology to all the others.
If this is not just some kind of posturing (which it probably is) it could lead to more complete polarization of the Intel architecture market into Intel and non-Intel camps. That is, the chipset vendors may have no choice but to put all their efforts into making AMD compatible products only. It seems kind of humorous that there could be a non-Intel Intel-Architecture camp.
It's a shame that Intel didn't patent the x86 instruction set, then they could have stopped AMD, cyrix and others from ever building processors at all.
MM
--
-- By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it their main product aimed at desktop systems is CPUs, not chipsets. Right now they are trying to cut their CPU off from another part of the market so they can sell more chipsets later - reducing the sales of their main product for the benefit of a secondary product.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
By which I mean, 'could be prevented from doing so solely by taking legal measures'. Obviously, they could be obstructed if Intel refused to release some necessary technical information to them, and that would be perfectly legal for Intel to do, but if Via has already come into possession of all the necessary information by legal means (i.e. publicly available specs, or reverse engineering) then they can build all they like. Which means that computer companies should feel free to use their chipsets, as long as they haven't signed any agreement with Intel not to use unlicensed products. I can't see that Intel would have any grounds to sue Via unless an actual agreement were violated.
By the way, HTML preview seems to be broken now.
kiscica
First, to those who wonder exactly how it is that Intel can limit things that interface with the P4... they use patents to prevent it. By patenting the interface into the P4, nobody can use it without licensing the patent.
:) :)
Second, I wouldn't believe either side yet. Lawyers have a tendency to slightly over-react. If motherboards come out and you get one, don't worry about it. You won't be liable for using the supposed "renegade" technology. Of course, IANAL, so everything I said was a lie.
3 boxes in my home office. All Athlons. I don't dislike Intel; I just dislike Intel's pricing.
Just to clarify the headline: Intel is not "warning" people that using the VIA chipset is dangerous -- that it might harm their Pentium 4 processors -- but rather that they wish it were illegal. A quote from the article:
Mr. Malloy and his superiors apparently believe that they have "intellectual property" not only in their patents, but also in devices they may have never seen which interoperate with their patents. I believe that this idea was settled in Nintendo v. Galoob, the "Game Genie" case, in which Galoob's right to create a device that interoperated with the NES game console (and which modified the behavior of the latter, no less!) was upheld.
Could it be possible that the Intel-S3 licensing agreement barred the transfer of IP rights?
Does anyone know?
Dancin Santa
I also have a question for those in the US. Can you buy single P4 chipsets without Rdram? When P4 came out here they only sold them with Rdram bundles, but now they actually sell P4s and their RDrams seperately. What they do is take out the Rdram that came in a P4 box and sell them seperately. I wonder if that's legal...
BTW, I am actually beginning to hate Intel. I never liked them since I have known about AMD and some of Intel's monopolisctic tactics but it gets very annonying to hear them sue or slander some other company or technology every week.
I know it's sort of meaningless to ask legal questions on /. but I'll ask anyway: Could I for example build a fan specificly designed for P4s without Intel's consent? Would I get sued? Just because Intel has filed patents?! I mean Via must have produced its own cpu interface for P4. Other than that, it's just the number and the layout of the CPU pins they are using. Intel's gonna sue Via because of this?!!? Can somebody explain?
Can someone tell me what this "Sig" box is for??
Rather than RDRAM, get excited about the much more scalable multi-channel low-end solutions which are appearing in the pipeline, the first of which will be the nforce. It dual-channels, but one can imagine quad-channeling, octo-channeling, etc. Exciting times.
VIA is not the only one.
Intel appears to be essentially on the warpath against chipset makers. Well, there is at least one chipset maker which seems to have Intel's approval (maybe Intel is going to buy them. heh,heh), but it appears that Intel is refusing to license the P4 bus technology to all the others.
If this is not just some kind of posturing (which it probably is) it could lead to more complete polarization of the Intel architecture market into Intel and non-Intel camps. That is, the chipset vendors may have no choice but to put all their efforts into making AMD compatible products only. It seems kind of humorous that there could be a non-Intel Intel-Architecture camp.
It's a shame that Intel didn't patent the x86 instruction set, then they could have stopped AMD, cyrix and others from ever building processors at all.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.