This is sensationalism.

Both Sony and Microsoft wanted processors based off of the PPC ISA. This architecture existed before the Cell and the Xenon. So, obviously, sections of these processors (both clocked at 3.2Ghz, btw) are going to be similar. They're both based on the same core technology from IBM.

Sony and MS went different routes: while MS decided to put 3 cores on a single chip, Sony decided to put two cores on a chip and then add a bunch of complimentary units similar to math coprocessors (The SPEs). They can compute floating point calculations for the cores, leaving the cores able to do other things and making the floating point throughput of the Cell very high.

However, due to the cost of the PS3, eventually the Cell was castrated to only a single core plus its SPEs. That's why today the Cell is generally behind the Xenon when it comes to gaming applications.

It's great for video decoding and floating point heavy operations, though.

So um, is this trying to prove MS stole from Sony again or what?

Basically yes.

The way I see it, this goes one of three ways:

1- It's bogus or irrelevant.

2- It's true, but it happened because Sony didn't adequately protect the research being done on their behalf by IBM (Sony's fault). In this case, what's to stop IBM engineers from sharing information among each other in order to not reinvent the wheel?

3- It's true, and it happened despite Sony protecting the research through NDAs and the such. In this case, Sony could press charges against IBM and/or Microsoft. More likely IBM only.

I think 3 is quite unlikely.

see i find this a gross over simplification. as both were based on prior work done for ppc, which is rooted in work done for apple so if anyone is pissed it should be them. the wii uses a chip based on what apple called power3 and the xbox, and ps3 use a power 5 dirivitive

3... wont happen, soy does not own enough of the right to do so, and the contract for the cell&powerpc developments give IBM the rights to develop other chips with the tech. even more so now that sony has sonld most of its development right in the project, remember when this started it was a 3way deal, riding on a clause in the original AIM (apple IBM Motorola (now freescale)) clause that allowed IBM to develope new chips based on the shared development of the PPC designs, and as such had to continue to allow any of the original partners of AIM to be able to push new technology developed to new partners.  

2..they couldnt due to the AIM alliance as stated above. 

1 is the winner by default 

one of the things that is cool out of all of this is apple, and freescale can use any of this tech to make their own chips if they decided to 

You use the word(s) "ISA" but "I do not think it means what you think it means". This is like saying gcc and icc are going to be similar because they both translate ansi C to 80386 assembly.

SystemP is rather incestuous, and I guarantee you there was some level of knowledge transfer, the question is how much. I interviewed with the guy who had been in charge of popping out MS's chip in record time. He had just got a nice promotion.

Scratch that. Bad analogy because the micro-architectures should be different.

sounds like more damage control again by people who's run out of ideas.

This would be grounds for termination of all the managers involved at Sony. Usually, if you are going to spin something you'd probably want to spin it in a way that if everyone believed you, you wouldn't get fired.

more articles about it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069467545545011.html

They also describe how the project went off the rails, ending up with IBM engineers creating the processing chips for two rival videogame consoles and, along the way, delivering to Sony Corp. one of its greatest business failures.