

Intel ordered to provide PCI for 6 years and to take compilers back - av500
http://www.compilerreimbursementprogram.com/

======
wccrawford
It looks like it's saying that Intel can't have programs designed to limit
anyone from sell or using competing hardware, such as AMD. They can't offer
kickbacks to computer makers if they only use Intel, for example.

It also requires Intel to very clearly state if their compiler will optimize
differently for Intel and non-Intel hardware, even though they contain the
same instructions (like SSE).

Anyone who has used Intel's compiler and the above cost them money is entitled
to reimbursement from Intel.

They have to clearly state when they use benchmarks that have been compiled to
work better on Intel hardware.

And they have to prove their compliance.

I am NOT a lawyer. The above is my best guess at what that legal document
means.

~~~
plmiujhbvnh
It wasn't a question of not-optimizing for non-Intel compilers, the compiler
detected AMD chips and deliberately slowed down the code.

They had previously got caught detecting a particular set of benchmark code
and generating pre-calculated results.

------
JoeAltmaier
Intel is essentially a moral-less, ravenous money-making machine. Their two-
facedness is legendary. Their "customer programs" are designed to fleece
customers while spending the absolute minimum effort/investment on Intel's
part.

But we get cheap chips! Sort of.

~~~
jrockway
Moral-less, maybe, but at least they contribute open drivers to Linux.

~~~
av500
like for the GMA500? :)

~~~
jrockway
Yeah, well...

It seems that the GMA500 is just someone else's product that they rebranded.
Hence, they can't provide open drivers because the "intellectual property" is
not theirs to "disclose". This doesn't make it acceptable, of course, but it
does explain their logic. Laziness, not evilness.

All I know is that xrandr works on the GMA hardware but not on nVidia
hardware...

(And to be fair to Intel, they are the only company that are releasing any
Linux drivers for WiMax.)

------
codedivine
Can someone please translate to non-legalese?

~~~
teilo
Here's a better explanation:

[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/ftc_settles_with_int...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/04/ftc_settles_with_intel/)

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Yes, that's a much better one, thanks.

EDIT: submitted as <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1869080>. If you feel
this is karma-stealing, I'll delete it.

