Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e) on May 23, 2022 2:05 am wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on May 22, 2022 8:46 pm wrote:
> > I knew there were ranges of encodings that could be used as licensees wanted for new stuff like
> > AMX, I just hadn't realized Apple was also extending existing facilities like NEON.
>
> Maynard only has a patent to cite here. There's no known opcodes, no reverse engineering,
> and Apple files patents on tons of things they don't actually ship.

It's true that patents are not dispositive.
However the dismissive attitude of so many towards them strikes me as just one more step in the denialism that we've been seeing about Apple since pretty much the A7.

On the one hand plenty of what I've found in patents has been validated, either by my explorations or by those of others.
On the other hand, when you look at enough of these things, you start to see the patterns, the patents that seem like something out of left field unrelated to the rest of the corpus vs the patents that seems like a natural continuation of so much else.