Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Mar 2009 17:04 UTC
Permalink for comment 353305
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2008-06-24
This is a prime example of how patenting stifles innovation. Intel is being a big baby and really needs to be put in its place. I kind of hope this goes to the courts and Intel gets slapped around a bit with a large trout for trying to [again] get a Monopoly in the x86 arena.
This really isn't something we want to see, especially during times where AMD is restructuring and trying to get on their feet again.
This wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal if every OS supported x86 alongside other instruction sets, but unfortunately it IS dominate and squeezes out the other contenders. Hopefully a new, un-patented, instruction set comes out of the dust and gives Intel a run for their money.