[Info-vax] Poulson at hot-chips 2011

[John Wallace]

On Aug 26, 7:48 am, Michael Kraemer <M.Krae... at gsi.de> wrote:
> glen herrmannsfeldt schrieb:
>
> > Michael Kraemer <M.Krae... at gsi.de> wrote:
>
> >>There's no evidence whatsoever that intel had stolen anything.
>
> > In the case of patents, you can infringe without knowing about
> > the patented design.   So, while "stolen" may sometimes be used,
> > it is not a requirement.
>
> Now this may well be possible in that intel vs DEC lawsuit.
> There aren't too many different ways to build a functioning
> microprocessor, I guess, the physics is the same for all.
> But this is far from some people's notion that
> intel are too stupid to build their own CPU and thus
> have to "steal" the design from others.
>
>
>
> > Many patents are bought to avoid the possibility of an infringement
> > suit, even when it isn't known that the technology is actually
> > infringing.  
>
> > -- glen

"the physics is the same for all. "

Yes the physics is the same for all, but the details of things like
branch prediction are not the same for all, and ignorance of the
existence of a patent is no defence in the courts.

"the ... notion that intel are too stupid to build their own CPU and
thus have to "steal" the design from others. " (and re "no evidence
that Intel had stolen anything").

Presumably you're not aware, or have forgotten, that two people who
had that notion, indeed perhaps started spreading it around, were
Intel's Chief Executive, Andy Grove, and Chief Operating Officer,
Craig Barrett, interviewed in the Wall Street Journal in 1996 (August
26th)?

E.g.

"the world's biggest chip maker copied and improved upon approaches
already laid out by minicomputer, mainframe and supercomputer
designers. But Intel has decided that won't cut it anymore.

"Now we're at the head of the class, and there's nothing left to
copy," said Craig Barrett, chief operating officer of the Santa Clara,
Calif., company. Adds Chief Executive Andrew S. Grove: "We're a big
banana now. . . . We can't rely on others to do our research and
development for us."

Can't find the original but it's referenced at
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986396,00.html and
elsewhere.

More recently than that, can readers think of anything original and
successful that Intel have come up with?

IA64: original but if it had to stand on its own two feet (rather than
relying on customers dependence on HP-UX and NSK and VMS) it wouldn't
be classed as successful, it would be dead, like it is in the Linux
and Windows markets.

Xeon 64 (or whatever EM64T is called this week): introduced after
years of Intel denying it was necessary or possible, basically a clone
of AMD64.

Quickpath/CSI: Intel's eventual response to AMD's Hypertransport (and
where did Hypertransport come from? Well it's kind of EV7-inspired).