reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert) (08/23/90)
INTEL Amending Copyright Infringement Suit Against AMD ELECTRONIC NEWS, July 2, 1990, page 8 INTEL's amended complaint against ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES asks that AMD stop calling its new math coprocessor the 80C287 and using the Intel brand on the device's packaging. It also asks that AMD issue a declaration that its '287 is not fully compatible and pin-equivalent to two CMOS versions of the part made by Intel. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "The opinions expressed here in no way represent the views of Digital Equipment Corporation." James J. Reisert Internet: reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!ricks.enet!reisert 77 Reed Road Hudson, MA 01749-2895
koch@motcid.UUCP (Clifton Koch) (08/28/90)
From article <14854@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert): > > INTEL Amending Copyright Infringement Suit Against AMD > ELECTRONIC NEWS, July 2, 1990, page 8 > > INTEL's amended complaint against ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES asks that AMD stop > calling its new math coprocessor the 80C287 and using the Intel brand on the > device's packaging. It also asks that AMD issue a declaration that its '287 > is not fully compatible and pin-equivalent to two CMOS versions of the part > made by Intel. > I thought AMD is not able to claim Intel compatibility, but does not have to claim that they are not compatible.
cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us (Gordon Hlavenka) (08/29/90)
>INTEL's amended complaint against ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES asks that AMD stop >calling its new math coprocessor the 80C287 and using the Intel brand on the >device's packaging. It also asks that AMD issue a declaration that its '287 >is not fully compatible and pin-equivalent to two CMOS versions of the part >made by Intel. I thought it was interesting that Intel was claiming that it infringed _Intel's_ copyright for _AMD_ to put "Copyright Intel" on the chips... ----------------------------------------------------- Gordon S. Hlavenka cgordon@vpnet.chi.il.us
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (08/30/90)
In article <4506@navy22.UUCP> koch@motcid.UUCP (Clifton Koch) writes: |From article <14854@shlump.nac.dec.com>, by reisert@ricks.enet.dec.com (Jim Reisert): |> |> INTEL Amending Copyright Infringement Suit Against AMD |> ELECTRONIC NEWS, July 2, 1990, page 8 |> |> INTEL's amended complaint against ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES asks that AMD stop |> calling its new math coprocessor the 80C287 and using the Intel brand on the |> device's packaging. It also asks that AMD issue a declaration that its '287 |> is not fully compatible and pin-equivalent to two CMOS versions of the part |> made by Intel. |> | I thought AMD is not able to claim Intel compatibility, but does not have |to claim that they are not compatible. I don't speak for AMD or Intel, but the way I understand it is that Intel has several "287"s, the original NMOS 287, which is what AMD has reimplemented in a CMOS process, with lower power, an Intel "C287" which is not pin compatible with the NMOS Intel 287, and two new 287s which are something like 287XL and 287 XLT (I just made these suffixes up) which are based on a 387 core and thus could run faster (except that most software just uses the LCD of 287 functionality). What this means is that for all those NMOS 287 sockets out there, the AMD C287 will work just like the Intel NMOS 287, except that it will generate less heat and consume less power. Anyone with a laptop ought to seriously consider it. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil