Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DailyTech busts out The Inquirer over ATI/Intel bus license

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 1, 2006 3:40:25 AM




[whining]'''Sniffle'''' " but....but....The Inquirer never lies....."""sniff sniff'''...They always tell the truth......."""""slobber""""......I know cause BM and ( inch would never quote an unreliable source.....""""sniffle""""[/whining]


LOL, nice find Jesse

Peace
August 1, 2006 4:23:16 AM

yeah, the inq. article is old. i was refering more to dailytech's jab at inq.
August 1, 2006 4:37:31 AM

Yup. They took jabs at TGDaily when the Core Duo (Yonah) battery issue was discovered. They all bicker at one another. I'd have to say that TGDaily does it the least though. Omid would rather rant on his blog than publish a news story trashing something. That's the professional way.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Except for President Bush's statements of course. Those are entirely truthful.
August 1, 2006 4:48:01 AM

There is too much ownage in this thread. No more posting by anyone for a week. :tongue:
August 1, 2006 4:53:50 AM

go eat dinner!
August 1, 2006 4:56:26 AM

At 3pm? At work????
August 1, 2006 6:15:25 AM

Much as I tend to find most Inq articles badly worded and structured in such a way as to give a false impression, alot of them do seem to have *some* grain of truth at their core.

For instance, the one saying the Conroe NDAs lifted on the 14th and we'd see reviews then ment just that, we'd start seeing reviews from the press. Everyone took this as meaning the thing would be purchasable (as the article seemed deliberately worded to imply without actually stating it).

I cant see Intel wanting their main competitor (AMD) having a license to their FSB technology. ATi had a license to make independant products for it and it is concievable that that means AMD could now release a processor that would run on Intel's FSB (though I dont see it as very likely even if it would be within the terms of the license.)

It seems entirely possible that when Intel sold the license to ATi it was sold as 'non-transferrable', and although ATi has had all its intellectual property and assets purchased by AMD, they did not retain the right to sell the licence on in the same way that you dont OWN Windows XP just because you hold a licence.

If this were the case, although the licence hasnt expired, it would still need to be renewed in AMD's name if they wish to continue to use it, and I really dont see Intel being happy to release intimate details about its platform to AMD and give them a licence to make parts for it.

Disclaimer: Incase you missed it in the post, most of what I have written here is speculation :p 
August 1, 2006 2:18:58 PM

Quote:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/24/ati_intel_bus_license...
toms reiterrated the refference to the inquirer article,the license has been revoked. according to toms and their inquirer source
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/31/will_nvidia_geforce_s...
which contradicts the article from last week.theres some intentional misinformation on a larger scale here.
i smell a rat. :evil: 


yep... i noticed that. i also emailed the author of that article and informed him that he was in error.
August 1, 2006 11:51:39 PM

Quote:
Much as I tend to find most Inq articles badly worded and structured in such a way as to give a false impression, alot of them do seem to have *some* grain of truth at their core.

For instance, the one saying the Conroe NDAs lifted on the 14th and we'd see reviews then ment just that, we'd start seeing reviews from the press. Everyone took this as meaning the thing would be purchasable (as the article seemed deliberately worded to imply without actually stating it).

I cant see Intel wanting their main competitor (AMD) having a license to their FSB technology. ATi had a license to make independant products for it and it is concievable that that means AMD could now release a processor that would run on Intel's FSB (though I dont see it as very likely even if it would be within the terms of the license.)

It seems entirely possible that when Intel sold the license to ATi it was sold as 'non-transferrable', and although ATi has had all its intellectual property and assets purchased by AMD, they did not retain the right to sell the licence on in the same way that you dont OWN Windows XP just because you hold a licence.

If this were the case, although the licence hasnt expired, it would still need to be renewed in AMD's name if they wish to continue to use it, and I really dont see Intel being happy to release intimate details about its platform to AMD and give them a licence to make parts for it.

Disclaimer: Incase you missed it in the post, most of what I have written here is speculation :p 


Actually The Inquirer claimed that the release date would be the 14th. They then posted a followup claiming that it would be released on the 14th in Europe, and the 13th in the US. After the 14th passed they posted another followup, this time changing the release date to the 27th.
!