I don't know. No one does, after many, many years. I mean, other than screwing over competition with legal wrangling.

The joke is that Intel has very literally stalled or outright managed to crush several attempts to put x86 instruction set emulators and cisc-implementations on various RISC-computers, now that the instruction set level storage is no longer prohibitively expensive on a computation unit. The actual legal details of this ongoing feud is so sordid and ridiculous at the same time, that in several cases even completely blank judges have decided the arguments don't hold up. But at the moment, if you wanted to do cisc-type optimisation of an x86 emulation engine, whether this is programmable instruction sets or not, this runs afoul Intel's definition of PC. So does chip-constructions that simply store instruction sets on general computation cores.

So there is in a sense still a requirement that an abstraction of a RISC-implementation cannot actually use x86 instruction sets at all. Which is why it is such a big deal that google throws it's weight behind a general Risc-v abstraction layer, in an attempt to make this a full ecosystem. I'm sure Intel will stick to the existing market forever in the same way. And surely there will be endless amounts of lawsuits coming the instant someone figures out how to emulate x86 VMs with any speed on Risc-V architectures. And at this point I wouldn't even be surprised if Intel will claim that any architecture technically capable of execution an emulated x86 instruction set in hardware will infringe on this utility of the x86 instruction set Intel has defined as a PC.

Anyway - at some point Intel will be gone, and this idiocy will end. But judging by how it's being done now, it won't end until the company is bankrupt.