It looks like it's saying that Intel can't have programs designed to limit anyone from sell or using competing hardware, such as AMD. They can't offer kickbacks to computer makers if they only use Intel, for example.
It also requires Intel to very clearly state if their compiler will optimize differently for Intel and non-Intel hardware, even though they contain the same instructions (like SSE).
Anyone who has used Intel's compiler and the above cost them money is entitled to reimbursement from Intel.
They have to clearly state when they use benchmarks that have been compiled to work better on Intel hardware.
And they have to prove their compliance.
I am NOT a lawyer. The above is my best guess at what that legal document means.
Intel is essentially a moral-less, ravenous money-making machine. Their two-facedness is legendary. Their "customer programs" are designed to fleece customers while spending the absolute minimum effort/investment on Intel's part.
It seems that the GMA500 is just someone else's product that they rebranded. Hence, they can't provide open drivers because the "intellectual property" is not theirs to "disclose". This doesn't make it acceptable, of course, but it does explain their logic. Laziness, not evilness.
All I know is that xrandr works on the GMA hardware but not on nVidia hardware...
(And to be fair to Intel, they are the only company that are releasing any Linux drivers for WiMax.)
9 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 28.1 ms ] threadhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/ftc_settles_with_int...
EDIT: submitted as http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869080. If you feel this is karma-stealing, I'll delete it.
It also requires Intel to very clearly state if their compiler will optimize differently for Intel and non-Intel hardware, even though they contain the same instructions (like SSE).
Anyone who has used Intel's compiler and the above cost them money is entitled to reimbursement from Intel.
They have to clearly state when they use benchmarks that have been compiled to work better on Intel hardware.
And they have to prove their compliance.
I am NOT a lawyer. The above is my best guess at what that legal document means.
They had previously got caught detecting a particular set of benchmark code and generating pre-calculated results.
But we get cheap chips! Sort of.
It seems that the GMA500 is just someone else's product that they rebranded. Hence, they can't provide open drivers because the "intellectual property" is not theirs to "disclose". This doesn't make it acceptable, of course, but it does explain their logic. Laziness, not evilness.
All I know is that xrandr works on the GMA hardware but not on nVidia hardware...
(And to be fair to Intel, they are the only company that are releasing any Linux drivers for WiMax.)