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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (164184)	4/18/2002 9:10:56 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

To All INTC Fans: This might be old news but it should make the cockles of your heart warmer. xbitlabs.com JFD

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (164184)	4/18/2002 10:29:35 AM
From: TGPTNDR	Respond to of 186894

JFD, Re: <I believe they are continuing further litigation under some sort of cap-No?> Yes, that's what I said, $300M, to be exact. For that 300M, Intel gets the lawsuit out of Alabama(INGR's home town), gets rid of some contract problems and gets rights to some unrelated patents(face saving -- that's how they book $150m instead of tossing it out the window). They do not get any rights to the 5 'Clipper' Cache memory patents(CISC), but they do get rid of that liability for infringement in the Pentium series of CPUs. These are the patents INGR paid NatSemi $6.2M. I expect Intergraph to say HELLO to some other companies once this matter is settled. The patent info follows. < Intergraph contends that Intel is using the following five Intergraph patents in the Pentium family of microprocessors: August 22, 1989 ? Intergraph is granted U.S. Patent No. 4,860,192 entitled "Quadword Boundary Cache System," based upon technology developed for the Clipper microprocessor. (NOTE: 3.9 MB .pdf file; requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download from Adobe Systems Inc.) November 28, 1989 ? Intergraph is granted U.S. Patent No. 4,884,197 entitled "Method And Apparatus For Addressing A Cache Memory," based upon technology developed for the Clipper microprocessor. (NOTE: 3.8 MB .pdf file; requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download from Adobe Systems Inc.) February 6, 1990 ? Intergraph is granted U.S. Patent No. 4,899,275 entitled "Cache-MMU System," based upon technology developed for the Clipper microprocessor. (NOTE: 4.1 MB .pdf file; requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download from Adobe Systems Inc.) June 12, 1990 ? Intergraph is granted U.S. Patent No. 4,933,835 entitled "Apparatus For Maintaining Consistency Of A Cache Memory With A Primary Memory," based upon technology developed for the Clipper microprocessor. (NOTE: 3.6 MB .pdf file; requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download from Adobe Systems Inc.) February 25, 1992 ? Intergraph is granted U.S. Patent No. 5,091,846 entitled "Cache Providing Caching/Non-Caching Write-Through and Copyback Modes For Virtual Addresses And Including Bus Snooping To Maintain Coherency," based upon technology developed for the Clipper microprocessor. (NOTE: 3.7 MB .pdf file; requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, a free download from Adobe Systems Inc.) > Outstanding is the Texas argument over substantially the same subject WRT the PII, PIII, P4, and Itanium. That's what the cap of $150M to $250M is about. (My reading only and should not be interpreted as definitive. I'd appreciate a discussion by one schooled in law and familiar with the subject.) The remaining Texas argument is on PIC -- Parallel Instruction computing. Sort of reminds one of EPIC, and that's the distinction being made. Generation of CPU plus compiler to maximize CPU usage. We should hear more by the middle of June. tgptndr