none (none.delete@this.none.com) on April 21, 2019 6:36 am wrote:
> Travis Downs (travis.downs.delete@this.gmail.com) on April 20, 2019 7:24 pm wrote:
> > Beastian (noemail.delete@this.aol.com) on April 19, 2019 9:05 am wrote:
> > > Does anyone think that the upcoming expiry of patents on the core x86-64 instruction set
> > > which includes SSE2, maybe sooner than 2023 (as the Athlon 64 was introduced in 2003) would
> > > open the flood gates for third party implementations of compatible processors?
> >
> > The "x86-64" patents are only one part of the patent puzzle.
> >
> > There is a huge mass of patents, not all expiring soon, on CPU implementation - much
> > of which isn't specific to x86, which can also be used to keep competitors out.
> >
> > Just do a patent search for Intel as the assignee and ask yourself if you can easily
> > implement a high performance CPU without using any of those techniques.
>
> I wonder how that applies to software emulation/DBT. I guess some of Intel patents do
> apply since they threatened MS.
>
> > Now, it is my opinion that almost everyone in the CPU space regularly and mutually violate
> > each others implementation patents, but it is rarely litigated because (a) the implementation
> > is often invisible and thus hard to prosecute and (b) mutually assured destruction.
> >
> > Exceptions who actually do litigate frequently include WARF who, by virtue of not making CPUs themselves
> > don't need to worry about (b), although it is not exactly clear to be how they deal with (a), i.e.,
> > how they know a particular patented technique is being used. Perhaps observation of behavior is enough,
> > for patents written "behaviorally" rather than wrt a specific hardware implementation.
>
> There might not be mutual destruction but I for sure will never consider anyone from
> Wisconsin for a job in my team.

You do know that Seymour Cray was from Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin. Don't you?