[Info-vax] Poulson at hot-chips 2011

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2011-08-29 12.57, Michael Kraemer wrote:
> John Wallace schrieb:
>
>> 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)?
>
> well, WSJ is not my usual reading ...
>
>> 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."
>
> so what, if it's knowledge in the public domain,
> everybody can copy it, nothing wrong with that.
> If it's patented, feel free to file a lawsuit,
> but then evidence has to be strong enough.
> In that DEC vs intel case it obviously wasn't,
> or DEC didn't view Alpha as a strategic asset
> anymore, which were my original points.

Most lawsuits never come to a court decision. Not because the suing part 
have a weak case, but because they are offered enough to stop the court 
proceedings before it comes to a decision.

You must know this, right?

So your argument is basically pointless. Just because Intel didn't get 
convicted is no proof at all.

The fact that they payed a lot is the only thing we do know. All the 
rest becomes speculation. You might possibly ask yourself, why did they 
pay a lot of money if they were sure they were innocent? But that too 
can be answered with: "it's cheaper".

	Johnny