On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:09:43 GMT, Alan said: > That IP story is for the most part not even credible. If they were worried > about "software IP" they would release hardware docs and let us get on > with writing drivers that may well not be as cool as theirs but would > work. If they had real IPR in their hardware then they would hold patents > on it and would be able to take action against (or license it) to anyone > else making hardware. That would apply even outside the USA where > software patents are generally not valid. > > The only hardware IP they'd need to protect would appear to be anything > that revealed they used other people's IPR without permission or > licenses. Given the Nvidia/3Dfx affair I can see why they would be > worried about that given it cost them $70M and 1 million shares. Hey, I started out *up front* pointing out they can't open-source the drivers because some of the IP is other people's, didn't I? :)
Attachment:
pgpWIVkBuccJV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 4/8] UML - audio driver formatting
- Next by Date: Re: Suspend problems on 2.6.20-rc2-git1
- Previous by thread: [PATCH] cdrom: longer timeout for "Read Track Info" command
- Next by thread: Re: Open letter to Linux kernel developers (was Re: Binary Drivers)
- Index(es):
 |