I see an article that is not congruent with actual tech facts. They can warn all they want, because the precedent says otherwise. Even if you wanted to make the argument that Intel is against emulation on non-x86 systems, that’s not true - see Virtual PC for Mac, FX!32, qemu, bochs and countless 8086 emulators to run VGA ROMs on various legacy free systems (either in OS or firmware). If you wanted to make the case that efficient emulation on non-x86 is is disallowed, well, FX!32, qemu and Virtual PC all used and use JIT.

Intel’s position amounts to cage rattling and vague insinuations that efficient execution of x86 code is impossible without hardware support. That’s nice, and their ham-fisted approach already hurt customer choice in the past (Transmeta and nVidia Denver, before the later implemented the Arm ISA) but the Windows on Arm solution is completely software and not coupled to any specific Arm chip implementation.

There's not really any real precedent other than people not being sued. That's more the complete lack of precedent rather than precedent that it's legal.

You know, the article refers to Windows ARM emulation, but I now see the Intel post as a warning to Apple, as patent licensing discussions may have started about that time last year.

It usually takes 4-5 years to design a chip, and if Apple planned on releasing the Mac CPU in 2020, well...