Intel sued again?!

eden

Champion
<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/technews/index.html</A>
And what the hell is that all about now!
Itanium using parallel computing being something not licensed?!

God sometimes companies sue for no reason!

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>
 

eden

Champion
Weird, it was posted today!

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>
 

Schmide

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2001
1,442
0
19,280
If you read the <A HREF="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=569&ncid=738&e=3&u=/nm/20021010/tc_nm/tech_intel_lawsuit_dc" target="_new"><font color=red>Yahoo</font color=red></A> article, the original lawsuit was split to not include the 64bit technology. Apparently they lost that one too. If you've been following this for a while, IMO Intel screwed Intergraph, played bully and is now paying the price.

Complicated proofs are proofs of confusion.
 

eden

Champion
Hmm, an Itanium with no 64-bit technology you say?
That'd be pretty sad.

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=19957#19957" target="_new">Tell here!</A>
 

Schmide

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2001
1,442
0
19,280
Nah, they will just have to pay more for their already expensive overdevloped platform. The article says its 150M if they settele with out a fight, 250M if they fight and loose. Nothing if they win.

Complicated proofs are proofs of confusion.
 

Schmide

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2001
1,442
0
19,280
I'm not going to try to explain them. For one its <A HREF="http://www.intergraph.com" target="_new">Intergraph</A>. Second <A HREF="http://www.intergraph.com/intel/index.asp" target="_new">here</A> is there info page on their pattents.

Complicated proofs are proofs of confusion.
 

Schmide

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2001
1,442
0
19,280
You have to watch this hokey presentation <A HREF="http://www.intergraph.com/intel/pictutor/index.asp" target="_new">http://www.intergraph.com/intel/pictutor/index.asp</A>. Its long but gets it point across. Even for the dumbest of soul.

Complicated proofs are proofs of confusion.
 

imgod2u

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2002
890
0
18,980
Well, 1 of their points does make a point. Itanium's bundling method is very similar to that of the RPIC instruction set Intergraph had. However, the point of moving complexity towards compilers is more of a philosophy than a "patent". This is akin to someone patenting RISC and then sueing every company that made a RISC CPU for making it without paying them money.
It is indeed similar to the Rambus lawsuits albeit not quite that similar. One has to wonder why not as many people are crying foul and labeling Intergraph "evil".

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
 

Schmide

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2001
1,442
0
19,280
It is indeed similar to the Rambus lawsuits albeit not quite that similar. One has to wonder why not as many people are crying foul and labeling Intergraph "evil".
I would assume that that is because they're not going after the whole industry with submarine patents, like Rambus.

Intel and Intergraph used to be in cahoots, but Intel tried to strong-arm these patents away from Intergraph. (I.e. You give us these patents and we'll let you hang in our coattails.) Once that was done, Intel basically cut off Intergraph from the industry, refused to certify any of their motherboards, and basically pushed them out of the hardware industry. I believe that Intel basically believed that Intergraph was a much smaller player in the chip industry than they actually were. They may have been taken out of the industry, but they still hold some vary valuable intellectual property.

Complicated proofs are proofs of confusion.
 

imgod2u

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2002
890
0
18,980
As I said, not completely similar, however the concept of the arguement is the same. Loose patents that really shouldn't be patents to begin with. The company then wishes to cash in on these so called "patents". Rambus did this with a few loose patents and now this company is doing it. The base of the arguement is the same even if the company is only aiming at 1 company instead of every chip manufacturer out there. Is the number of companies you sue the deciding factor as to whether it's considered "evil" or not?

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.