7 ms·
At very least, because they're legally obliged to. The anti monopoly laws prohibit companies in Intel's position from doing what they're doing (and they also ag
by yarg 7y ago
At very least, because they're legally obliged to.
The anti monopoly laws prohibit companies in Intel's position from doing what they're doing (and they also agreed not to in the settlement for the AMD lawsuit).
- greglindahl 7y agoWas that part of the settlement made public? I got subpoenaed by both sides (compiler vendor) but no one told me much about the settlement other than it was a small amount of money to Intel that was a big windfall for AMD.
- kbumsik 7y ago> At very least, because they're legally obliged to. Are you sure about that Intel MKL is also applied to that law? Intel MKL is a propriety software by Intel and its system requirements clearly states that it is Intel 64 and IA-32 only. Do you mean that all propriety software made by the hardware manufacturer should support competitor's hardware as well?
- lawrenceyan 7y agoThat's false. Intel's MKL library has been repeatedly marketed as a tool for all processors including non-Intel ones. Combined with this fact, Intel's choice to purposefully remove performance enhancements for AMD processor is very clearly in violation of antitrust law.
- Teknoman117 7y agoExcept it's not against antitrust law. As long as they document that it may not run well on non-Intel processors, they are in the clear, at least in the US. Is it scummy? Sure, but that was the ruling when this came up for their compiler.
- wmf 7y agoUnfortunately the settlement only required Intel to document their deoptimization practices, not change them.
- moonbug 7y agoNo, they're really not. Here's the ruling, read it for yourself https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/101102inteldo.pdf https://ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/101102in...
- yarg 7y agoThanks for the correction, it was a long time ago and that was how I recalled it, of the top of my head.