[Info-vax] Itanium and the NY antitrust suit against Intel

[Michael Kraemer]

JF Mezei schrieb:

> Something of note here: not long before June 25 2001, there was another
> significant event for IA64: First boot of Windows on an IA64.
> 
> This may have been some contractual item "once IA64 can do first boot fo
> windows, it means it is close enough to market that you kill your own
> chip" clauses that Intel had with both HP and Compaq/Digital.
> 
> Remember that Digital had a deal with Intel as part of Digital thanking
> Intel for stealing Alpha IP. 

AFAIK intel never was convicted of "stealing Alpha IP",
so this is probably just an urban legend.
Note that intel in turn sued DEC over patent infringement,
and the whole thing ended with the well known settlement.

Note further that a few years earlier M$/Cutler were
indeed found guilty of stealing DEC's IP.
But according to some strange logic this is seen
as no problem because superhero Cutler was involved.

> That deal not only included cool pricing
> for 8086s but also porting of Digital Unix to that IA64 contraption.
> 
> So it is quite possible that Compaq inherited a contract with clauses
> forcing Compaq to kill Alpha within X weeks of first boot of Window on
> IA64. Just a theory.

Not only theory, just a bit of business logic.
DEC sued intel to put a bit of pressure on them.
intel had the choice to fight it out, with uncertain
outcome, or to buy alpha. They chose the latter,
paid a few $100M and got a working fab,
alpha production rights, DEC's promise to support IA64
with DUX and very probably DEC's promise to kill Alpha
as soon as IA64 is out the door.
Otherwise the whole deal wouldn't make sense.

So intel got a lot of bang for their bucks,
and DEC got rid of the Alpha burden.
A win-win situation so to say.

Compaq simply inherited the contract
and EOLed Alpha when the time was right.