On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 02:37:09PM -0500, Damian Wiest wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote: > > 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. > > Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't > know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine that there > are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or > accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not > hold a license, into their commercial products. Rather than releasing > information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property > issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. >
WTF! Why are you trying to protect a company that has more patents than employees (okey I did not count them). Do you think that any company will succeed with a patent claim against Intel? The best thing they will get is a counter claim. If the company is small it's over -- David against Goliath does not work in the US law system. For larger companies the normal outcome is a mutual licensing of each others patents (or part of them). So not releasing docu because of patents is a straw-man argument. Especially since a docu for writing a driver just needs to describe the basic functionality of the card. The DMA engine and the register set and btw. networking chipsets (wireless or not) are not rocket science. -- :wq Claudio
