Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!gvgpsa!gold.gvg.tek.com!grege
From: grege@gold.gvg.tek.com (Greg Ebert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Intel/Cyrix lawsuit
Keywords: co-processor
Message-ID: <1828@gold.gvg.tek.com>
Date: 2 Jan 91 22:32:15 GMT
Organization: Grass Valley Group, Grass Valley, CA
Lines: 21

The Dec. 24 issue of EE Times has an article about Intel and Cyrix suing
eachother over Cyrix's 80387 coprocessor.

Cyrix's antitrust suit against Intel alleges Intel's patent regarding
coprocessor architecture is invalid because it was "prior art". They
also charged that Intel was offering discounts to dealers who agreed
not to sell Cyrix devices.

Intel alleges Cyrix's foundry uses an Intel-patented process during wafer
fabrication. Their suit was filed a day after Cyrix's suit. What seems
odd to me is that Cyrix was sued, instead of the manufacturer (Taiwan
Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp.)

So, my friends, if you're looking to buy a Cyrix '387, you'd best act now...
- - -
On the same page, another article stated that Intel and Advanced Micro Devices
have a date in court next week regarding the number 386. Intel says "386" is
a trademark which cost $20 million to develop; in a nutshell, AMD says it's
simply a number.

Stay tuned for further bloodshed.