[Zigurd]

Regarding "Just like many graphics chips, this processor does some black magic to boost performance and Intel doesn't want to give any clues to competitors..."

One reason it's common for GPU makers to be secretive is that there is a very big risk that GPUs and their drivers violate patents, and the makers of these products want to make it as difficult as possible to ascertain whether patents are being violated. They won't even broach the topic because that would draw them in to willful infringement.

So a proprietary OS maker like Microsoft can conclude a deal with IMGTek and give them all the secrecy they want, and Linux is left out.

Apparently even Intel can't get IMGTek to open up. Intel probably doesn't want to complicate their negotiating position with IMGTek by saying anything about whether Intel's GPUs might be sufficiently power-efficient to go into mobile parts. There is a lot of money, and a lot of product viability at stake. Intel GPUs have open source drivers.

[luriel]

> One reason it's common for GPU makers to be secretive is that there is a very big risk that GPUs and their drivers violate patents, and the makers of these products want to make it as difficult as possible to ascertain whether patents are being violated. They won't even broach the topic because that would draw them in to willful infringement.

This is another example of how patents are directly counterproductive to their originally intended goal of encouraging open innovation. Patents are not just creating a minefield, but are encouraging everyone to be more secretive at the same time.