blaine (myname.delete@this.acm.org) on October 30, 2020 12:03 pm wrote:
> Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on April 20, 2019 7:29 am wrote:
> > anyone (any-dont.delete@this.me.com) on April 20, 2019 7:11 am wrote:
> > > AMD didn't patent the x86-64 instruction set, but there are x86-related patents. x86 patents
> > > are not on the instruction set, which may be copyrighted for the specific mnemonics and
> > > names used for various features, but for implementation techniques. Unfortunately, patents
> > > are often overly broad or obvious, so even a clean reverse engineering attempt may fall
> > > afoul of many circuit implementation or even software emulation technique patents.
> > >
> > > Transmeta was the last successful non-licensee to battle Intel over x86 patents
> > > because Transmeta had built up a powerful defensive patent portfolio.
> > >
> > > See: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective
> >
> > Based on what I have researched, mainly talking to some key people involved, I don't
> > think Transmeta would have prevailed in the next round of legal battles that were
> > about to be filed. Not sure I can say more but the fight was not completed.
> >
> > -Charlie
>
> Similarly, I recollect that Platform Solutions(? long time ago) offered emulation
> of IBM Mainframes and was forced to give up after a long battle. And they had
> the advantage of the Justice Departments Consent Decree against IBM.

They were bought by IBM in 2008 to end lawsuits.

David