1. 16
  1.  

  2. 6

    It’s rather amazing, when you think about it, that we have any nice things at all. Do the big virtual machine makers pay to license Intel patents? Or is this simply Intel being anti-competitive, using its patent portfolio for legal justification? I’m guessing the later, but it’s also completely in their right because of “patents.”

    1. 2

      I wonder about this with regards to Bochs and qemu (when used without KVM).

      Hypervisors like qemu-kvm, Xen and so on, not so much; they’re using Intel’s and AMD’s own virtualisation extensions, not implementing x86 emulators themselves.

      1. 4

        I was thinking VMWare and Virtualbox, which at some point in time were very Bochs / qemu like. But, yeah. I guess you pick your targets, and MSFT making Windows compatible with ARM like this is much more financially scary than hobbyists / students emulating an instruction set to learn about it, or run Excel from Linux, or what not.

      2. 1

        IIRC, most of what they’re threatening over are SIMD instruction sets - which most likely are covered by prior art - often from Intel itself.

      3. 6

        I think Intel is running out of gas. Their process lead and their design lead are both smaller than ever. Qualcomm and AMD are almost as good, and perfectly happy undercutting Intel. (Never mind that Apple is miles ahead of all three in terms of low power performance, but is mostly irrelevant to Intel because they don’t compete directly.)

        This is just the Intel management lining up the lawyers to try to defend entrenched markets because they don’t have much technological advantage left.