Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (64331)	11/26/2001 12:40:17 PM
From: AK2004	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Pravin re I'm sure that Intel will be a leader in SOI technology probably, but the key word is "will", not yet re: Can't wait for their x86-64 announcement!!! I would not be surprised either Regards -Albert

To: Pravin Kamdar who wrote (64331)	11/26/2001 12:47:11 PM
From: Win Smith	Respond to of 275872

It's just funny how their Reality Obfuscation Machine works. Nothing is real until Intel says it is. On that topic, muzoni pointed out this article on that other thread:http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20011126S0035 "Intel is incorrect," wrote Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in a decision dated Nov 20. "Intel argues that Fast Write is a 'protocol,' not a specification. A protocol, however, can also be a specification. At oral argument, Intel's attorney at first even agreed that the AGP 2.0 specification contained a 'specification' for Fast Write. At the end of the oral argument, however, he rescinded his agreement. Although the court would not bind counsel to his admission, the exchange illustrates the confusion in Intel's position." The judge also took a swipe at Intel for being too narrow-minded in its interpretation of what features are optional or required when implementing the AGP standard. "Under Intel's reading of the license, it would be impossible for any engineer or business to understand what was (or was not) licensed," Alsup wrote. Toward the end of his written decision, the judge cited a March 1998 interview in EE Times that he said further undermined Intel's argument that Via needed additional licensing to implement the AGP standard. In the story, Intel chief technology officer Pat Gelsinger said his company promoted standard interfaces, such as PCI and AGP, "by creating what we call an 'IP-free zone' around them, basically, [so] other companies don't have to license IP before they can use the standard." Intel says a lot of things. Putting much stock in anything they say is apparently a rather dubious proposition. It'll all mean something else when history rewrite time comes around.