[citation][nom]turbotong[/nom]Wow, this is going to get tricky real fast. Especially if Mark Hurd is involved. I'm pretty sure some part of his previous settlement with HP involved not giving away company secrets like that (if true).[/citation]
Criminal acts aren't protected by non-disclosure agreements or no-compete agreements. If HP is in fact paying Intel to keep Itanium alive in an effort to force Oracle to continue developing for Itanium based systems, neither a non-disclosure agreement nor a no-compete agreement would legally prevent Mark Hurd from talking. Now, if HP is paying Intel strictly for their own gains....it's a different story and HP will eventually have to prove it and could possibly take legal action against Mark Hurd as a result.
[citation][nom]sinfulpotato[/nom]Wasn't it obvious that the towel was thrown in when AMD made x86-64 back in the early 2000's?[/citation]
x86-64 has nothing to do with Intel killing off Itanium. Clock for Clock, Itanium outperforms the Opteron processors. What actually hurt the Itanium processor was it's initial inability to execute 32bit code, which was corrected with the Itanium2. Most companies that were likely to buy into the Itanium processors, chose to go the route of the Xeon and Opteron due to native 32bit support.