---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:37:09 -0500 >From: Damian Wiest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Intel's Open Source Policy Doesn't Make Sense >To: misc@openbsd.org > >On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 08:39:37PM -0600, Breen Ouellette wrote: >> Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
... >> > >> >d) There are so many patents issued for obvious techniques used in >> > computer peripheral chips that releasing documentation might tempt >> > an ethically challenged company to sue them for royalties. >> > >> >Intel has been on record as stating that patent issues are now a >> >significant problem for them. >> > >> >-wolfgang >> > >> >> That's just their way of saying that AMD is patenting technology that >> Intel has to licence, and that is just so very terrible for them. I >> mean, shame on AMD for taking the shiny toy away from Intel. :) >> >> And seriously, is Intel insinuating that they are using patented >> technology without licencing it? That seems rather bogus to me. >> Ignorance of breaking the law does not waive their liability under the >> law, and if they get caught in this kind of lie then I hope the legal >> system stomps all over them. It would serve them right. If Intel doesn't >> like the patent system, then they can lobby against it. But they are >> just a hair's width shy of admitting guilt if they actually make >> arguments like the one attributed above. >> >> Breeno >> >> PS - before I get accused of being a 'commie' in this latest round of >> discussions regarding bad corporate behaviour, I'd just like to say that >> it was my understanding that believing the law should not be broken is >> not how you define a communist. > >Intel may just be worried that there _might_ be a problem they don't >know about and are trying to protect themselves. I imagine that there >are plenty of opportunities for someone to either willfully or >accidentally introduce patented technologies, for which Intel does not >hold a license, into their commercial products. Rather than releasing >information and potentially having to deal with an intellectual property >issue, Intel just doesn't release the information. > only mr. rumsfeld is allowed to invoke the "unknown unknowns" defense and get away with it. it is intel's repsonsibility to know its hardware, so in the worst case there should be "known unknowns". if indeed there are "unknown unknowns" in the IP that goes into the chipset docs, that's one more reason to not buy intel products. >-Damian
