From owner-freebsd-chat Sun May 25 23:36:50 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA02211 for chat-outgoing; Sun, 25 May 1997 23:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA02206 for ; Sun, 25 May 1997 23:36:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id XAA20276; Sun, 25 May 1997 23:36:33 -0700 Date: Sun, 25 May 1997 23:36:33 -0700 From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199705260636.XAA20276@kithrup.com> To: nadav@cs.technion.ac.il Subject: Re: Intel Pentium II released Newsgroups: kithrup.freebsd.chat In-Reply-To: References: <199705251747.KAA17807@kithrup.com> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Cc: chat@freebsd.org Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk In article you write: >What worries me is that, at least here, this went unnoticed >by the press, much like when someone sues Microsoft for violating >copyrights or whatever, meaning that it might be a lost cause. Still, I >think I'll follow this... Trust me... around here, it has *not* gone unnoticed. Of course, I live in Silicon Valley, where new chip announcements make the front page :). There's also a lot of discussion going on in comp.arch, including all of the patents being posted along with some analysis. Also, DEC is not claiming that Intel "intentionally" infringed; they are claiming that Intel knew about the patents at some point before DEC filed suit. (It's a subtle but important distinction.) Yes, I am rooting against Intel in this case. Not because of any love for DEC, but because something needs to be done about Intel. In a related issue, Cyrix, I think it was, also sued Intel last week. I don't know the details about that, though.