Intel sends subtle reminder to Microsoft about x86 Patent

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

 - Push that the tech is so old that is public domain, allowing a wave of CPU manufacture to come in the PC desktop space. (Harder to push, but will destroy Intel)

Anything older than 20 years Intel can't make a patent claim on already. There's already an x86 open implementation project at http://opencores.org/project,zet86

 

The problem is the newer stuff that applications rely on.

[Curufinwe_wins]

1 hour ago, Notional said:

Oh of course. I was specifically talking about PC platforms. But yeah, proper x86/64 emulation would be a necessity to make that work. Question is if MS needs to pay license fees to utilize x86 or if that is just needed if you make chips based on it? 

Also what if the emulation is only x86-64?

It looks like it will be the other way around. ONLY x86, no 64bit support. 

 

Just based on all of the press information, and that would also be much easier to emulate, given that ARM performance in hpc 64bit is pretty terrible.

[WMGroomAK]

Ars Technica has provided an interesting take on how & which the different instruction sets under x86 may be affected by this...

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel-fires-warning-shots-at-microsoft-claims-x86-emulation-is-a-patent-minefield/

Quote

This leaves the extensions with widespread application adoption that are new enough to still be covered by patents. For the most part, these extensions all fall into the same category: they're the various SIMD (single instruction, multiple data) instructions that have widespread use in certain kinds of number crunching, video and image processing, and gaming, among other fields. The newest of these instructions, the AVX family, is probably recent enough that developers do not blindly assume that AVX is available. Rather, they will include both AVX code and equivalent non-AVX code so that if AVX is not available, they can fall back to slower but equivalent routines.

 

But AVX's older predecessor, the SSE family, is much less likely to have such fallbacks. AVX needs fallbacks because developers can still reasonably expect that their programs will be run on machines that don't support AVX, but that's not the case for SSE: AMD made SSE2 a mandatory part of its 64-bit AMD64 extension, which means that virtually every chip that's been sold over the last decade or more will include SSE2 support. As such, developers don't need to bother including a non-SSE2 fallback path just in case SSE2 isn't present. Instead, their software will simply break.

 

[LAwLz]

This got me thinking. Will Windows 10 on ARM be able to run in 64bit mode or is it limited to 32bit? Because of it's 64bit enabled then there are even more patents Microsoft would need to get approval to use.

 

God I hate patents...

[sof006]

So Intel wants to shoot themselves in the foot by having a patent war with Microsoft, meanwhile they aren't doing much to win over consumers with their new overly expensive and pointless X299 platform.

[Sauron]

Intel can screw right off on this to be honest, they can either make hardware that is competitive on the pc space or suck it up and become irrelevant. Everyone has been emulating x86 for decades, 

On 6/9/2017 at 8:22 PM, tsk said:

The emulation of x86 on ARM has the potential to wipe out Intel from the low end PC market. The very reason Intel cancelled its Mobile SoC efforts were because they couldn't compete on price/performance vs ARM.

x86 emulation has been a thing for a very long time, with varying degrees of success. Whatever Microsoft comes up with is very unlikely to compete in performance with any modern intel chip (whereas the other way around works very well, since emulating risc on cisc is much easier).

 

On a side note, I would not use windows on an ARM computer. This is an opportunity to finally get rid of their monopoly.

[Pancake2k]

One big misconception I think people will have about this is that it will destroy and be a real competitor to x86. Granted arm processers are powerfull for what they are but they arnt power houses especially while using extra power for emulation of apps,these machines have no chance to overtake high end chips (i5,i7 mobile chips ECT.) They'll only rock the low end market (think of Celeron to i3 laptops)....atleast from what I've seen and would believe,iv seen too many people think this will take over the mobile game industry some how so I just wanted to say that.

 

As for the legal issue I can't see Intel banning or making x86 emulation illegal but I can see them trying to enforce restrictions on it or charging a large royalty. it will be interesting to see how this will go and play out in court if it does go that far. Emulation is legal by judicial standards and I don't think X86 would be an exception to that...as long as Microsoft doesn't use some sort of code of Intel's to make the emulation possible.

 

Seriously though think of the possibilities,less chance of a proprietary charger in laptops , cheaper laptops ,hours more worth of battery life. I'm excited to see how this plays out ?

 

 

Edit: Also if this doesn't go well in Intel's favor I hope they come up with some sort of competitor processer line like the atom again, I want to see compitition from there side more than any thing else with this so they can get off their high horse for once that they've been on for the last several years

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

35 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Intel can screw right off on this to be honest, they can either make hardware that is competitive on the pc space or suck it up and become irrelevant. Everyone has been emulating x86 for decades, 

x86 emulation has been a thing for a very long time, with varying degrees of success. Whatever Microsoft comes up with is very unlikely to compete in performance with any modern intel chip (whereas the other way around works very well, since emulating risc on cisc is much easier).

 

On a side note, I would not use windows on an ARM computer. This is an opportunity to finally get rid of their monopoly.

For your side note, so long as we don't get stuck on Android/iOS on desktops (if it ever comes to pass that ARM displaces x86), I'm more than happy with killing the Microsoft monopoly. Perhaps that might even be the opportunity for Linux to hit the mainstream. 

[JoeCoke]

On 6/9/2017 at 3:07 PM, GoodBytes said:

We actually have MANY CPU architecture, many of which are in production. ARM is near or is at the top of the mostly used architecture due to smartphone market. A high-end ARM is pretty powerful for a massive amount of people. The same way as a Core i3  or Core M with a decent SSD provides a great experience for them. And maybe in a few more years, would be fine for a budget AAA games as well, if the 835 isn't already.

 

The problem is lack of apps/games. Windows 10 on ARM without x86 emulation will only result in history repeating itself with Windows 10 Mobile. Having "the core apps" is still not enough either. Everyone has their core apps. I am sure someone here will say "OMG Winamp! I can't live without it, even thaugh they don't exists anymore, and the software was never updated for the last 15 years"

I can't live without Winamp. There, I said it.

 

[GoodBytes]

19 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

For your side note, so long as we don't get stuck on Android/iOS on desktops (if it ever comes to pass that ARM displaces x86), I'm more than happy with killing the Microsoft monopoly. Perhaps that might even be the opportunity for Linux to hit the mainstream. 

Linux already hit the mainstream several times, and you have Lenovo and Dell both selling fine Linux systems, like the Dell XPS Developer Edition. Not doing to well, and never did in the past. Consumers aren't interested, and Linux community aren't helping by fighting which dstro is actually the best, so it is hated as it doesn't have the distro that they enjoy using. And then argument comes of "what's the point... I'll need to clean install my favorite distro in any case.." well you get the rest.

 

Shame. Consumers who do need Linux for their work, do prefer OSX. Being Unix base, and have a polished, clean, professional experience, while having support, and can do everything that Linux can. And hence why most mobile app developers, and startups uses Mac's

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

Linux already hit the mainstream several times, and you have Lenovo and Dell both selling fine Linux systems, like the Dell XPS Developer Edition. Not doing to well, and never did in the past. Consumers aren't interested, and Linux community aren't helping by fighting which dstro is actually the best, so it is hated as it doesn't have the distro that they enjoy using. And then argument comes of "what's the point... I'll need to clean install my favorite distro in any case.." well you get the rest.

If it isn't running Windows or macOS, you can say with high confidence it's running Linux :3

[Sauron]

26 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

For your side note, so long as we don't get stuck on Android/iOS on desktops (if it ever comes to pass that ARM displaces x86), I'm more than happy with killing the Microsoft monopoly. Perhaps that might even be the opportunity for Linux to hit the mainstream. 

There are a few projects to run android apps on gnu/linux so it may still end up being better than the windows/wine situation even if android takes over.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Android may or may not be a thing in the future depend on how much Google pushes Fuchsia

[Pancake2k]

True this could defirnlty help Linux in the long run if it does go through

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

If it isn't running Windows or macOS, you can say with high confidence it's running Linux :3

You sure it's not BeOS?

[Mira Yurizaki]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You sure it's not BeOS?

I think you mean AmigaOS

[Jito463]

Just now, M.Yurizaki said:

I think you mean AmigaOS

I used to run that (my first computer was an Amiga 2000), but that was never for the x86 platform.  BeOS, on the other hand, did eventually make it to x86 before dying a slow death.  I never ran it personally, but I always remembered the name.

[Blake]

On 6/10/2017 at 3:43 AM, GoodBytes said:

 - Push that the tech is so old that is public domain, allowing a wave of CPU manufacture to come in the PC desktop space. (Harder to push, but will destroy Intel)

 

Well, x86 basically is public domain at this point, it's the extensions that are not. And good luck finding any application form the last 20 years that isn't just hello world that will run with out these extensions (heck i'd say most compilers require the other extensions anyway).

 

The issue is that it hasn't been tested in court for a long time.

 

On 6/10/2017 at 5:30 AM, Trixanity said:

Some patents have expired but it's still impossible to make a modern x86 processor without the latest instructions and extensions.

Microsoft aren't making a processor, neither is Qualcomm. Qualcomm has an ARM license, they are making an ARM cpu. Micorosoft is making an 'emulated x86'. How they accomplish this, and whether or not it violates patents, is a matter for MS and Intel's lawyers. But I can see MS arguing that wow64, which brings x86 to x86-64 gives them justification / precedence and Intel failed to protect their IP back then.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Blake said:

Well, x86 basically is public domain at this point, it's the extensions that are not. And good luck finding any application form the last 20 years that isn't just hello world that will run with out these extensions (heck i'd say most compilers require the other extensions anyway).

 

The issue is that it hasn't been tested in court for a long time.

 

Microsoft aren't making a processor, neither is Qualcomm. Qualcomm has an ARM license, they are making an ARM cpu. Micorosoft is making an 'emulated x86'. How they accomplish this, and whether or not it violates patents, is a matter for MS and Intel's lawyers. But I can see MS arguing that wow64, which brings x86 to x86-64 gives them justification / precedence and Intel failed to protect their IP back then.

Wow64 is different in that it was more a compatability subsystem to allow 64 bit windows to run 32bit applications, not to get a different processor to run them.  

 

This is however could get interesting, emulation can be a tricky case for IP law. Copyright protects software and IP protects hardware, but this is somewhere in the middle and I would not be surprised if a new precedent is set should anything come of it.  Let's not forget that Nintendo won an emulation case on the grounds that the emulator bypassed their hardware copyright protection and that the emulators fell outside regulations under the unfair competition prevention law, something Intel could easily argue in this case.   

 

Intel are a surprisingly big company with much reach, as are MS, I wouldn't put money on either one winning.   Neither will take on a court case they can't afford to lose, and neither are going to suffer greatly from the outcome.  

[Trixanity]

7 hours ago, Blake said:

Well, x86 basically is public domain at this point, it's the extensions that are not. And good luck finding any application form the last 20 years that isn't just hello world that will run with out these extensions (heck i'd say most compilers require the other extensions anyway).

 

The issue is that it hasn't been tested in court for a long time.

 

Microsoft aren't making a processor, neither is Qualcomm. Qualcomm has an ARM license, they are making an ARM cpu. Micorosoft is making an 'emulated x86'. How they accomplish this, and whether or not it violates patents, is a matter for MS and Intel's lawyers. But I can see MS arguing that wow64, which brings x86 to x86-64 gives them justification / precedence and Intel failed to protect their IP back then.

Wow. Really?

 

You read what I wrote, sure. But not what I quoted. So what you just said was completely irrelevant and I award you no points.