Intel, Intergraph Settle In Hyperthreading Suit 13
Sir Pallas writes "Intel settled a patent infringement suit over SSE and Hyperthreading for $225mil with Intergraph. Furthermore, Dell, also named in the suit, claims that their indemnity agreement with Intel applies in this case and requires Intel to take any bullets headed Dell's way." Update: 03/31 17:49 GMT by T : philthedrill writes "The Intel/Intergraph article title is incorrect. Technically," (according to this story at out-law.com), "Intel/Dell and Intergraph settled a longstanding suit which dealt with Itanium (not SSE/Hyperthreading). Another company, MicroUnity, is now suing Intel and Dell over SSE and Hyperthreading."
What is it with Intel and Intergraph, anyway? (Score:4, Interesting)
This has been of particular interest in my state (Alabama), because it's a point of pride; Intergraph is located in Huntsville (near the space and rocket center), and is a relatively small company compared to Intel. One wonders if Intel simply figured "What the hell, we'll just take their stuff, patents be damned. What's that little hick company gonna do about it? We're INTEL, and they're, well, hicks". That's the thinking around here, anyway.
Corrections, and stuff... (Score:5, Informative)
The Integraph suit deals with Itanium stuff, as is stated here [out-law.com]. The SSE/Hyperthreading suit is another company (MicroUnity) and another suit (same article).
Now, from what I understand, MicroUnity's MediaProcessor is a fine-grained multithreaded processor. There's limited information here [realworldtech.com] and here [technion.ac.il], which may be the processor with the alleged patents that have been infringed upon. But what about University of Washington's SMT group [washington.edu]? They put out their first paper in 1995. The Alpha EV8 (21464), before it got canned, was supposed to have SMT (and the Alpha group went from Digital to Compaq [wikipedia.org] and then to Intel [slashdot.org]). I'm speculating that Intel got Hyperthreading from Alpha who got it from Washington. DEC/Compaq worked with Washington's SMT group, as Luiz Barroso [sbcglobal.net] is listed on the Washington SMT page (interestingly, he works for Google [google.com] now. His Google article [sbcglobal.net] is quite interesting).
A Classic David -vs- Goliath Story (Score:4, Informative)
With no other source of suitable high-end processors available and with its hardware business under serious threat because of Intel's actions, Intergraph sought court protection by filing a lawsuit on November 17, 1997. The lawsuit asserts claims against Intel in three areas: illegal coercive behavior, patent infringement, and antitrust violations.
Not PC, but: Intergraph==SCO, Intel==IBM (Score:1, Troll)
I know this isn't the politically correct point to make on
In the early to mid-nineties, Intel was having problems with their next generation CPU architecture, so they called in the guys from Intergraph for some help. Intel then proceeded to steal almost every piece of intellectual property that Intergraph possessed, stuck a knife squarely in Intergraph's back, and walked right out the door.
Fast forward to the late-
Re:Not PC, but: Intergraph==SCO, Intel==IBM (Score:2, Insightful)
The tone of your message makes me suspect that you have a large position in SCOX and believe press releases from SCOX instead of well researched facts on Groklaw; for all I know you may work for SCOX.
Personally I am offended by SCOX's attem
Re:Not PC, but: Intergraph==SCO, Intel==IBM (Score:1)
The tone of your message makes me suspect that you have a large position in SCOX and believe press releases from SCOX instead of well researched facts on Groklaw; for all I know you may work for SCOX.
No interest in SCO, no interest in Intergraph, no interest in Intel, and no interest in IBM [although I worked there briefly about seven years ago, and, for the record, hated every second of every minute of every hour I spent on IBM premises, and hated the very thought of going to work every day].
Just some
Yes, ironic isn't it? (Score:1)
One likely reason for IBM canning Monterey was that IBM decided to proliferate POWER4, rather than go with Itanium in the medium range, and reserve POWER for the very highest ends of the market. The irony of all this is that now IBM are pushing Linux, and canning their own UNIX anyway.
Yes, it is ironic that IBM decided to ditch Itanium. And it's also ironic that AMD's CISC-ish 64-bit architecture is about to blow Intel's EPIC-ish 64-bit architecture right out of the water.
But for SCO, these aren't iron
Re:Not PC, but: Intergraph==SCO, Intel==IBM (Score:1)
No. (Score:1)
You seem to be implying that IBM took the work done on Project Monterey and contributed it to linux or to another unix.
No, I am implying that IBM entered into a partnership with SCO to produce an operating system and then stuck a knife in SCO's back just as the operating system was being readied for shipment. Project Monterey was peanuts to a company like IBM, but it was everything to SCO.
Frankly either you are very confused, have a grudge, or both.
Nope, just trying to point out that politically corr