On 03/10/06, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) Intel doesn't own the technology, but licensed it from another
> vendor. The licensing terms don't allow Intel to release full
> details.
>
> b) Intel has agreements with other customers/vendors to not release
> information about a particular piece of hardware.
>
> c) Intel doesn't feel that it's worth the cost to provide information
> for driver developers.
d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in
computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt
an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties.
Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a
significant problem for them.
If Intel releases documentation, wouldn't it work the other way
around, too? FreeBSD RelEng people are famous for mentioning that an
old release of FreeBSD was used to invalidate a patent:
"In September 2003, we know of a case where FreeBSD 1.1 was used
in a court of law to invalidate a bogus software patent."
Cheers,
Constantine.
