home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.invest
- Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!ampex!decwrl!adobe!pngai
- From: pngai@adobe.com (Phil Ngai)
- Subject: Re: AMD - what's your opinion?
- Message-ID: <1992Dec28.190309.26200@adobe.com>
- Sender: usenet@adobe.com (USENET NEWS)
- Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
- References: <1992Dec21.184619.18145@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> <69i6VB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca> <1992Dec22.000628.23020@unocal.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 19:03:09 GMT
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <1992Dec22.000628.23020@unocal.com> stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini) writes:
- >In article <69i6VB1w165w@student.business.uwo.ca> pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky) writes:
- >>My understanding of AMD's legal woes is that they were prevented
- >>from using Intel's microcode in their (AMD's) next generation of
- >>Intel-clone microprocessors. More specifically, their next generation
- >>is to be a 486-clone so that product has been pushed out until next
- >>spring/summer.
- >
- >IF it has to run identical micro-code, it sounds more like a reversed
- >engineered "copy" than an emulation. LAZY.
-
- There was a time when Intel desperately wanted the appearance of a
- second source because a big potential customer with a TLA insisted on
- it. In the big dispute between AMD and Intel over the 386, the
- judge/arbitrator said Intel acted in bad faith.
-
- AMD paid Intel good money for access to their microcode. A few years
- later, Intel suddenly stated that the microcode was for educational
- purposes only and was not supposed to be used in products. AMD was
- rather surprised by this claim.
-
- --
- My opinions are my own.
-
-