Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!apple!amdcad!brahms!phil
From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: AMD vs. Intel Arbitration
Message-ID: <1990Oct17.031047.22909@amd.com>
Date: 17 Oct 90 03:10:47 GMT
References: <1990Oct11.214112.1392@mozart.amd.com> <0093E147.DAED9F80@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Sender: usenet@amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 19

In article <0093E147.DAED9F80@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes:
|This does NOT answer the $64000 question: Does AMD have the right to make the
|'386 ?

Whether Intel has to transfer the 386 to AMD will be decided in the
"penalty" phase of the proceedings, which will begin no sooner than
11/15/90.. We have only just completed the "liability" phase, contrary
to what some of the articles you may have read would lead you to believe.

Independent of whether Intel has to transfer the 386 is whether
AMD has the right to use the 386 microcode in a reverse
engineered 386. That is the subject of another lawsuit which will
begin trial next year.

A third issue is whether anyone but Intel can even use a "386"
designation, since Intel is claiming a trademark status on it.

--
The Bill of Rights isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now.