5 ms·
Intel ordered to provide PCI for 6 years and to take compilers back
- codedivine 16y agoCan someone please translate to non-legalese?
- teilo 16y agoHere's a better explanation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/ftc_settles_with_intel/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/ftc_settles_with_int...
- JoachimSchipper 16y agoYes, that's a much better one, thanks. EDIT: submitted as http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869080 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869080. If you feel this is karma-stealing, I'll delete it.
- wccrawford 16y agoIt looks like it's saying that Intel can't have programs designed to limit anyone from sell or using competing hardware, such as AMD. They can't offer kickbacks to computer makers if they only use Intel, for example. It also requires Intel to very clearly state if their compiler will optimize differently for Intel and non-Intel hardware, even though they contain the same instructions (like SSE). Anyone who has used Intel's compiler and the above cost them money is entitled to reimbursement from Intel. They have to clearly state when they use benchmarks that have been compiled to work better on Intel hardware. And they have to prove their compliance. I am NOT a lawyer. The above is my best guess at what that legal document means.
- plmiujhbvnh 16y agoIt wasn't a question of not-optimizing for non-Intel compilers, the compiler detected AMD chips and deliberately slowed down the code. They had previously got caught detecting a particular set of benchmark code and generating pre-calculated results.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoIntel is essentially a moral-less, ravenous money-making machine. Their two-facedness is legendary. Their "customer programs" are designed to fleece customers while spending the absolute minimum effort/investment on Intel's part. But we get cheap chips! Sort of.
- jrockway 16y agoMoral-less, maybe, but at least they contribute open drivers to Linux.
- av500 16y agolike for the GMA500? :)
- jrockway 16y agoYeah, well... It seems that the GMA500 is just someone else's product that they rebranded. Hence, they can't provide open drivers because the "intellectual property" is not theirs to "disclose". This doesn't make it acceptable, of course, but it does explain their logic. Laziness, not evilness. All I know is that xrandr works on the GMA hardware but not on nVidia hardware... (And to be fair to Intel, they are the only company that are releasing any Linux drivers for WiMax.)