Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Since the business practices are left "unspecified", Intel is certainly not admitting they were engaged in illegal business practices.
One has to wonder if this settlement isn't partly spurred on by the apparent chilly reception software patents received at the In re Bilski case the other day. I can't say I know a lot about either Intel or AMD's patent portfolios, but both companies make a substantial amount of software. If a large portion of both sides portfolios wind up being nullified, AMD's antitrust claim may be the only thing of significance left between the two cases.
Intel worries that they'll have little or no claim left against AMD, and AMD knows full well that you can't really predict how the Supreme Court will decide just because they had some hard, pointed questions for one side, so suddenly it seems like a great time to bury the hatchet.
I'm too lazy to go back and reread the entire Anandtech article, but if I remember correctly, it speculates on the amount of memory on Intel's controller and specifically states that Intel doesn't use the controller memory the way you describe, for the exact reason you state. Or perhaps it was the other article they did about the hiccuping drive from... was it OCZ? Either way, I feel pretty confident power loss won't cause data loss (at least not at the fault of the SSD controller)