> Worse that that. If you buy any Intel processor since the 8086, US$5.00
> of the cost is a license fee paid to Micro$haft. Micro$haft claims
> ownership to the "Intel Architecture", i.e., what used to be called
> the "IBM-PC/AT".
Assuming the above is true, and that merced does not implement the
"Intel Architecture" then perhaps Micro$oft will no longer collect
such a royalty from intel (not that this might make merced any more
affordable). I assume that any manufacturer of "Intel Architecture"
processors would have to pay a royalty, not just intel (including
any ability for merced to emulate the "Intel Architecture").
> They "purchased" the rights to this design from IBM sometime in the
> early '70s, waited about 10 years for major developments to be made by
> Intel and others, then threatened a suit. The settlement was a 5.00
> per processor fee to be paid by the end-user.
The fellow that IBM folk generally consider to be most responsible for
the "IBM-PC/AT" architecture is Mark Dean. He lives right around the
corner from me. Strange world we live in where a yahoo that had nothing
to do with the original design should profit so handsomely from it. I
guess that world is inherently unfair. Mark is currently the head of
the IBM Austin Research Lab and still designs HW/SW architecture (unlike
other "originators" of the various wintel bits).
Ed Welbon
welbon@bga.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu