Wolfgang S. Rupprecht 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.
-wolfgang
That's just their way of saying that AMD is patenting technology that
Intel has to licence, and that is just so very terrible for them. I
mean, shame on AMD for taking the shiny toy away from Intel. :)
And seriously, is Intel insinuating that they are using patented
technology without licencing it? That seems rather bogus to me.
Ignorance of breaking the law does not waive their liability under the
law, and if they get caught in this kind of lie then I hope the legal
system stomps all over them. It would serve them right. If Intel doesn't
like the patent system, then they can lobby against it. But they are
just a hair's width shy of admitting guilt if they actually make
arguments like the one attributed above.
Breeno
PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest round of
discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just like to say that
it was my understanding that believing the law should not be broken is
not how you define a communist.
