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

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 645590
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Just so we are clear...
by galvanash on Wed 14th Jun 2017 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Just so we are clear..."
galvanash
Member since:
2006-01-25

galvanash,

"I have no idea if this is the case or not,


So my word's not good enough, haha, well it's easy enough to verify independently.
"

Sorry, I meant that "I" had no idea or not as to whether the binary was compile with alternate code paths or not. I wasn't questioning your findings ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Just so we are clear...
by Alfman on Thu 15th Jun 2017 00:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Just so we are clear..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

galvanash,

Sorry, I meant that "I" had no idea or not as to whether the binary was compile with alternate code paths or not. I wasn't questioning your findings ;)


Not a problem, it's something we could chuckle over in person, but didn't come across online ;)


Speaking of which, is anyone in the NY/long island region?

Reply Parent Score: 2