Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Jun 2017 20:31 UTC, submitted by dionicio

You'd expect with Microsoft adding x86 emulation to its upcoming ARM-based windows 10 PCs all the possible licensing issues would be sorted. As ubiquitous as x86 is, it's easy to forget it's still a patent minefield guarded by Intel. And surprise, surprise, with the chipmaker under pressure from AMD and ARM, it felt the need to make that very, very clear. Dangling at the end of a celebratory PR blog post about 40 years of x86, Intel writes:

However, there have been reports that some companies may try to emulate Intel's proprietary x86 ISA without Intel's authorization. Emulation is not a new technology, and Transmeta was notably the last company to claim to have produced a compatible x86 processor using emulation ("code morphing") techniques. Intel enforced patents relating to SIMD instruction set enhancements against Transmeta's x86 implementation even though it used emulation. In any event, Transmeta was not commercially successful, and it exited the microprocessor business 10 years ago.

Only time will tell if new attempts to emulate Intel's x86 ISA will meet a different fate. Intel welcomes lawful competition, and we are confident that Intel's microprocessors, which have been specifically optimized to implement Intel's x86 ISA for almost four decades, will deliver amazing experiences, consistency across applications, and a full breadth of consumer offerings, full manageability and IT integration for the enterprise. However, we do not welcome unlawful infringement of our patents, and we fully expect other companies to continue to respect Intel's intellectual property rights. Strong intellectual property protections make it possible for Intel to continue to invest the enormous resources required to advance Intel's dynamic x86 ISA, and Intel will maintain its vigilance to protect its innovations and investments.

I'm assuming Microsoft has all this stuff licensed nice and proper, but it's interesting that Intel felt the need to emphasize this as strongly as they do here. Which companies is Intel referring to here? Maybe Apple?

Thread beginning with comment 645508
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Time to move on?
by Kroc on Tue 13th Jun 2017 08:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Time to move on?"
Member since:

As if ARM isn't fragmented already? "ARM" is already a hodgepodge of different ISAs and whatever customisation the vendor throws in.

RISC-V would still be a step forward, whatever happens.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Time to move on?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 13th Jun 2017 13:42 in reply to "RE[3]: Time to move on?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

Well, there has been an attempt to standardize arm for servers

The spec for that itself is arm customer only, but the compliance suite is open source, apparently.

Basically it says you have to use UEFI and ACPI which allows operating systems to know how to boot and how to discover and talk to random hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Time to move on?
by Andre on Wed 14th Jun 2017 09:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Time to move on?"
Andre Member since:

ACPI and UEFI? Isn't a device tree the more common way to communicate the hardware information to a kernel on ARM?

Reply Parent Score: 1