Article View: comp.sys.intel
Article #18Re: Why not INTEL586?
From: Michael R Castle
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 23:04
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 23:04
13 lines
954 bytes
954 bytes
In article <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> eletanjm@nuscc.nus.sg (Tan Jin Meng) writes: >I can understand why INTEL would want a name for their next generation >processor to be trademarkable. Then why not simply use the name >INTEL586. Surely this has to be trademarkable. > >jin meng Because then we would have Cyrix586 and Am586 and we would be back where we started. Btw, is Motorola having this problem? ;-> mrc
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Oct28.230413.28960@umr.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!usenet-feed.cc.umr.edu!mcs213d.cs.umr.edu!mcastleReferences:
<1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ukma!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!usenet-feed.cc.umr.edu!mcs213d.cs.umr.edu!mcastle From: mcastle@mcs213d.cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle) Subject: Re: Why not INTEL586? References: <1992Oct28.103344.18434@nuscc.nus.sg> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 23:04:13 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: mcs213d.cs.umr.edu Organization: University of Missouri - Rolla Sender: cnews@umr.edu (UMR Usenet News Post) Message-ID: <1992Oct28.230413.28960@umr.edu> Lines: 13