(2 of 2)
Irritating though such glib sentiments might be to a vanquished rival--and there are many in Silicon Valley who would just love to see something nasty happen to Microsoft and Intel, if only for the change of pace--such bluster hardly constitutes proof of illegal behavior. "I don't think there's any question that the suit is a negotiating ploy," says Mercury Research analyst Mike Feibus. The current industry wisdom is that Digital's aim is to gain an out-of-court settlement that would give it a foothold in Intel's fortunes--either a cross-licensing agreement granting access to Intel innovations for Digital products or a role in the development of Intel's new 64-bit chip, code-named Merced and expected in 1999. "This is a serious issue," Digital's chief technology officer Bill Strecker insisted to TIME. "Our intention is to take this case through to trial." An Intel spokesman says the company is innocent and will defend itself with all due vigor.
The case, however, is considered unlikely ever to reach a jury, which would be about as capable of unraveling the programming parentage of a modern microprocessor as it would be of figuring out which Sierra mountain stream was the source of a glass of water taken from San Francisco Bay. In fact, some observers think the suit's lasting legacy could well be revision of a body of patent law increasingly inadequate to handle the staggering intricacies of digital technology.
"The microprocessor is the most complex man-made creation in history," says Michael Slater, principal analyst for MicroDesign Resources, based in Sebastopol, Calif. "Everything is built on everything that went before. It's a continuous stream of new ideas...but none of these ideas are broad. The broad ideas are almost all IBM's." Hey, maybe Big Blue ought to be calling its lawyer too.
--Reported by Daniel Eisenberg/New York