|
Message
From: "Jim Dempsey" <tapedisk@a...>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 10:46:11 -0500
Subject: Re: Universal Processor (was Re: [oc] x86 IP Core)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dalton" <john.dalton@b...>
<snip>
> As a side note, perhaps such an architecture would
> not infringe on 'rights' of other companies? As far
> as I know, it is not illegal to describe an instruction set.
> The 'translator compiler' would be a novel stand alone
> development (possibly worthy of its own patent). Such
> a compiler could hardly infringe a patent on the
> implementation of a microprocessor instruction, as
> its behaviour is entirely dependent on any machine
> description fed to it. Claiming infringement would
> be like claiming a VHDL compiler infringes since
> given the right source file as input it can produce
> an 'illegal' microprocessor.
>
The Patent covers the design and/or method, not how it
is derrived. If you hired a million monkeys and gave them
pencils and then they re-derrived an invention covered
by Patent then that gives you no right to bypass the protection
of the Patent. I assume this also applies to automated methods
to reconstruct the design or method based or not based on
a description.
Jim Dempsey
|
 |
Browse
