Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

01.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#21

Post by ams6110 »

another-cuppa wrote: post #18
moron4hire wrote: post #5

A lawyer friend of mine one told me that his job was basically to try to see what he could sneak past the opposition's (his sentiment, not mine) lawyers in their contracts. He explained contracts are like a running game of tag for lawyers. "If they don't read it, fuck 'em". He also said that all contracts are mutable. Just strike in red whatever you want, sign it, and send it back. If they don't object (for whatever…

This is essentially how all business works. When I got my first job before I went to university I was very surprised to learn that accountants always pay invoices on the very last day of the terms rather than as soon as they can. Since everyone else is going to pay you as late as they poassibly can, if you pay your invoices as soon as you can you'll lose out in the long run. The way everyone tries to get slightly mor…

It's often not that they're really trying to screw the vendor, but that their cash flow doesn't allow immediate payment.

A lot of commercial invoices have payment terms like "2/10, net 30" meaning you can take a 2% discount if you pay within 10 days. The cost of not taking this deal is an effective 35% annualized interest rate, so it's a big incentive to pay early, assuming your cash flow allows it.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#22

Post by bunderbunder »

tpxl wrote: post #16
forkerenok wrote: post #3

Can anyone with background in law in some of EU member states share their take on enforceability of the DeWitt clause[0]? I know it popped up quite a few times here, but very few commented on it in the context of EU. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt

AFAIK EULA's are unenforcable in the EU. Disclosure: IANAL

I doubt it's anywhere near that simple. The EU, being a loose confederation of independent countries that had all been doing their own things for a very long time before joining up, has a wildly heterogeneous legal environment.

Even in a single country like the US, whether a EULA will be considered enforceable depends heavily on a plethora of factors, including what court the case is being tried in.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#23

Post by majewsky »

tpxl wrote: post #16
forkerenok wrote: post #3

Can anyone with background in law in some of EU member states share their take on enforceability of the DeWitt clause[0]? I know it popped up quite a few times here, but very few commented on it in the context of EU. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt

AFAIK EULA's are unenforcable in the EU. Disclosure: IANAL

IANAL. This is not legal advice.

AFAIK, in Germany a EULA is enforceable. But if you are only presented with the EULA after having bought the product (e.g. if the software came on DVD in a shrink-wrapped box, so you couldn't look at the EULA at the store), you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree to the EULA.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#24

Post by mort96 »

opencl wrote: post #19
Gwaih1r wrote: post #2

I had a quick Google and couldn't find any published benchmarks yet. Does anyone know of one so far?

This is all I've seen so far. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for...

While interesting, those benchmarks are only for the kernel mitigations; they don't benchmark the new microcode:

> Update: To note, no microcode changes/updates were made to the systems under test for this article, just testing/comparing the kernel patches.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#26

Post by stefan_ »

majewsky wrote: post #23
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK EULA's are unenforcable in the EU. Disclosure: IANAL

IANAL. This is not legal advice. AFAIK, in Germany a EULA is enforceable. But if you are only presented with the EULA after having bought the product (e.g. if the software came on DVD in a shrink-wrapped box, so you couldn't look at the EULA at the store), you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree to the EULA.

EULAs are enforceable, but surprising or unreasonably discriminatory clauses are not. When it comes to contracts with private customers, judges tend to interpret that highly restrictively.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#27

Post by phkahler »

another-cuppa wrote: post #18
moron4hire wrote: post #5

A lawyer friend of mine one told me that his job was basically to try to see what he could sneak past the opposition's (his sentiment, not mine) lawyers in their contracts. He explained contracts are like a running game of tag for lawyers. "If they don't read it, fuck 'em". He also said that all contracts are mutable. Just strike in red whatever you want, sign it, and send it back. If they don't object (for whatever…

This is essentially how all business works. When I got my first job before I went to university I was very surprised to learn that accountants always pay invoices on the very last day of the terms rather than as soon as they can. Since everyone else is going to pay you as late as they poassibly can, if you pay your invoices as soon as you can you'll lose out in the long run. The way everyone tries to get slightly mor…

>> When I got my first job before I went to university I was very surprised to learn that accountants always pay invoices on the very last day of the terms rather than as soon as they can.

I was told one company I worked at held off payment beyond the terms - waiting until we owed enough to be worth their bother. The problem was that one guy was trying to order parts to build some prototypes for a customer and they refused to do anything until they got paid. Our sales efforts were being hindered by people refusing to do their jobs - i.e. pay suppliers.

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#29

Post by CaptainZapp »

forkerenok wrote: post #3

Can anyone with background in law in some of EU member states share their take on enforceability of the DeWitt clause[0]? I know it popped up quite a few times here, but very few commented on it in the context of EU. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_DeWitt

The problem with enterprise software, such as data management software, where this clause is most often used, is that it doesn't come with an EULA, but with a full blown contract negotiated between the software manufacturer and the client.

Such contracts can run into dozens of pages and can be very specific.

It usually contains clauses specifying precisely what the customer is allowed to do with the software and what not.

A good example would be SAP, who sued Diageo for using the software in a way, which was not licensed. A court awarded the software provider north of 50'000'000 £ for allowing indirect access to the software[1]

If you think you're better off by using Oracle I have a license to sell you, but I digress.

Since those are full blown contracts negotiated between professional entities it's a quite safe bet that they are upheld by the courts.

[1] https://www.computerworlduk.com/it-vendors/sap-indirect-acce...

Re: Intel microcode license updated to permit redistribution

#30

Post by Moter8 »

kreetx wrote: post #8
nikeee wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to a German news article [0], Intel published benchmarks themselves [1]. [0]: https://heise.de/-4144515 [1]: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-tec...

Can anyone explain these graphs a bit. I.e the first one shows no impact what-so-ever, but are the benchmark conditions real-life-y enough?

Well, the first two aren't even interesting at all, because the fix is not needed there and it is disabled.

The first two just show, that the fix doesn't make performance worse when disabled.

"With non-virtualized operating systems."

"For non-virtualized environments or where it can be guaranteed that all virtualized guest operating systems are trusted." --> Aka disabled.

Post reply on HN