In the most recent cat fight between Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), lawyers for both sides claimed victory, at least for the time being. In his preliminary injunction, Judge William Ingram said AMD could continue to use a product numbering system that mirrors Intel's product line, but backed off from permitting AMD use of the name "Intel" in its advertisements.
This case revolves around a copyright infringement lawsuit launched by Intel over a supposedly Intel-compatible 80287 math coprocessor AMD began selling in April. The judge says AMD can't boast anymore that its 80287 is the 100 percent equivalent of Intel's although, as an AMD spokesman said, the AMD chip is "a reverse-engineered coprocessor that incorporates Intel microcode," microcode AMD received from Intel in a 1976 patent exchange agreement.
But what's at stake here isn't just the "80287" label -- that fish isn't big enough to fry. The big perch in the pond is the 80386, potentially one of the most profitable chips around. What's going on is that Intel is setting the stage to protect the name "80386" against chip cloning by AMD and other manufacturers. While Intel has apparently conceded its right to names like "8086," "80286," and "80287," the company is claiming ownership of and protection for the name "80386" (and "80486," etc.). As you can expect, that doesn't set well with chip manufacturers who'd like to cash in with compatible chips. AMD's response is that the "80x86" family name has become generic, somewhat like the term "PC," I guess.
By the time you're reading this, the situation might have taken another faltering step towards settlement because of a September ruling on the other Intel/AMD rhubarb, the "second source" dispute. To briefly recap that story: When IBM decided on Intel's 80x86 architecture as the CPU for its microcomputers, Big Blue stipulated that Intel had to provide a second manufacturing source for the chips. Consequently, Intel licensed the 80x86 architecture to other chip vendors, usually by means of technology exchange agreements. After that it was business as usual, until the 80386. Intel, recognizing a golden goose when it saw one, refused to allow AMD to manufacture the chip. Since the original agreement between the two companies said that disputes would be settled by arbitration, not legal action, AMD tried to get Intel to a mediator. Intel refused. AMD then went to court just to get to arbitration.
Who's right? It depends on which court case you're talking about. As for the microcode copyright ruling, I don't question Intel's right to protect products it produces and the names it uses to identify them. However, it also seems there may be some First Amendment questions involving AMD's right to say in advertisements (or otherwise) whether or not their products are "Intel compatible." The whole question of second sourcing, on the other hand, will likely drag on and I expect the windup will hinge on the exact wording of the agreements and whether or not those agreements are valid and binding. In any event, it will be the judge (or judges) who eventually decides, not you or me.
What I do know is that I first wrote about these legal calisthenics several years ago. Not only have the issues not been resolved, but new lawsuits keep getting pushed onto the stack: Look-and-feel, patents, copyright, and on and on.
To keep all this in perspective, however, note that when it comes to litigious propensities, the computer industry doesn't stand alone. A case in point: Kellogg's, those folks who put breakfast cereal on your table every morning, have launched a legal salvo at arch rival Nabisco over, of all things, shredded wheat. Each company claims "nutritional superiority" and says the other company is copying the other's product features and marketing strategy. Sound familiar? At least some good could come out of the Kellogg/Nabisco suit -- we might get more better fiber.
Better yet, maybe we all should join the League for Programming Freedom for a few bars of the "Hexadecimal Chant" (loosely sung to the tune of Country Joe MacDonald's "Vietnam Rag"):
1-2-3-4, Kick that lawsuit out the door, 5-6-7-8, Innovate, don't litigate, 9-A-B-C, Interfaces should be free, D-E-F-0, Look-and-feel has got to go.
Finally, in our never ending quest to bring you practical tools for everyday use, we're including this month the official DDJ bookmark. You'll find it attached to a tear-on-the-dotted-line card accompanying the "Programmer's Bookshelf" column on page 145. Counter to the prevailing legal winds, this bookmark is provided license-free; copy it and pass it around to your friends. As you might expect, technical support is minimal. If you have any questions, call my lawyer.
The Official DDJ Bookmark