21–30 of 234 posts
So they will ban all virtual machines which sometimes have to go for emulation, e.g. to handle XSAVE? Scorched earth policy will likely not be defensible under fair use law. Reverse engineering for compatibility has a few precedents.
An earlier discussion here had most people guessing it was Apple, not Microsoft, that Intel was lobbing the threat at. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14518189
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrix
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/84...
Years ago, I spoke with an attorney with a CS background. He had once worked on a case like this. Sharp guy. He didn't tell me the parties involved, and I didn't ask, though I assume he wouldn't speak openly about it while it was ongoing. I therefore don't know how it turned out. It was many years ago, so I might be remembering wrong. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice (neither mine nor his). Basically, there…
if it's Church Turing you're arguing, then Intel surely doesn't hold the patent on the whole equivalence class...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think Intel wants to waste resources (and get bad PR) if it isn't a significant threat to their bottom line. Microsoft saying they are going to emulate x86 on ARM with low overhead (and thus making it possible to switch to ARM and still use tons of legacy software) is a much bigger danger to them.
Isn't there some notion that you have to actively defend a patent to enforce it? That is, something where selective enforcement puts you in a weaker legal position? Edit: The legal term appears to be "the doctrine of latches"
However, the Supreme Court has recently (March) said that laches is no defense to patent infringement. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)
[2] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/03/22/supreme-court-says-lach...
If there's one lawyer in town, they drive a Chevrolet. If there are two lawyers in town, they both drive Cadillacs.
Patents expire after 17 years and x86 is 39 years old, so any of the original patents must have expired twice over already. They no doubt have been filing additional patents over the years. But I'm sure MS and Qualcomm have plenty of their own patents to bargain with. Also their warning could backfire if it gives Microsoft one more reason to finally walk away from x86 compatibility... not that this is likely to happe…
That's under the old law. Nowadays, for patents that issue from original applications filed on or after June 8, 1995, it's 20 years from the earliest filing date upon which priority is claimed (possibly extended to account for delays in the USPTO). [0]
AFAIK, most foreign countries follow the same rule — which is significant, because when one big company sues another for patent infringement, it will usually file parallel lawsuits in every country where (A) the plaintiff owns a patent and (B) the defendant sells the infringing product.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_S...
Attorneys on both sides must be excited on some level about the potential number of billable hours it'd take to litigate a case like this. Reminds me of a something an entrepreneurship professor told me... If there's one lawyer in town, they drive a Chevrolet. If there are two lawyers in town, they both drive Cadillacs.
My guess is this is all just negotiation from Microsoft's point of view and they are just trying to get Intel to license the ability to emulate x86.
Another possibility is this is a way to get Intel to invest more resources ( even at a loss) into competing with ARM.
Attorneys on both sides must be excited on some level about the potential number of billable hours it'd take to litigate a case like this. Reminds me of a something an entrepreneurship professor told me... If there's one lawyer in town, they drive a Chevrolet. If there are two lawyers in town, they both drive Cadillacs.
> And Intel's business health continues to have a strong dependence on Microsoft's business, which has to make the chip firm a little wary of taking the software company (or its customers) to court. I mean, Apple and Samsung had a billion dollar lawsuit while Samsung chips were still in iPhones. It's certainly precedented to sue a corporation you're actively doing business with.