SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC)
INTC 37.83-4.2%3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Brian Malloy who wrote (14290)3/16/1997 3:00:00 PM
From: Ali Chen   of 186894
 
Brian,
<This is not about anticompetition, it's not even about
computer chips. It is something much more fundamental.
The MMX name is about INTEL protecting its property rights,
its trademark, its intellectual capital. Its the American
way, and Andy Grove as an immigrant and citizen of this
country realizes this better than most.>

Thank you for the historical lesson and the reminder. IMHO,
there is not too much intellectual capital in the MMX. The P55C
is better than P54 not because of MMX, but because of larger L1
cache. The potential of MMX needs to be yet realized trough
MMX-aware software. Surely I agree that the x86 with MMX is
better than without, but the gain for corporate computing is
exactly zero. Period.

<INTEL has added value to the moniker MMX. The MMX logo is out
in print and TV ads. Intel did this, Intel paid for this.
They have a right to protect their investment.
Why should they just allow AMD and Cyrix to walk in and say our
chips are MMX, we are the same as INTEL?>

So, you also DO agree that the MMX was a "public domain" moniker?
No more questions. Too bad, Intel made a mistake and wasted
money for promotion of a term that does not belong to them.
Period.

<GM builds cars, Ford builds cars there are many other sources of cars.
But GM would never be so bold as to build a car that looks like the
Mustang and then call it a Mustang. They would be sued.>

The better analogy would be the Antilock Brake System. Say, you
licence the right to use ABS in my car, but did not apply for the
trademark because it is nonsense, the abbreviation was widely used in
press. Now you sue me for listing this as a feature of my product?
How should I call it? SAB? BAS? It is the SAME, it is LICENSED.
To be worried about customer's confusion is the top of dissemblance.

<INTEL made it quite clear ..80', 90' that they would be
the sole source for their chips.... Given the current state
of Cyrix and AMD I'm glad INTEL doesn't have second sources.>
<There are other sources of chips. People can buy Alpha chips
or even Power PC chips ... People have no problem with them.>

You obvously are not familiar with the concept of "second source"
in mass-production industry. Be careful with your investments.

Thanks,
- Ali
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext