By: Ungo (a.delete@this.b.c.d.e), August 31, 2022 1:10 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
--- (---.delete@this.redheron.com) on August 31, 2022 10:44 am wrote:
> That's great. And when you send me the links to the talks and papers where Apple has disclosed
> this info, I'll be all over them. Until then, what what do you suggest I do?
I dunno about Chester, but it seems rather obvious: just stop. It's pointless to spend so many hours doing what you do. You cannot reverse engineer specific chip design details based on layman's misreadings of deliberately vague patents which may or may not even apply to the chips you're talking about.
If you really love reading patents, carry on, just have some humility and grace about it. Stop pretending patent claims are unimpeachable facts when you haven't done the empirical legwork to prove they apply to the subject at hand. And don't get hurt and defensive and angry whenever people question your understanding or interpretation of a patent, especially when you know you aren't a subject matter expert in that field.
> That's great. And when you send me the links to the talks and papers where Apple has disclosed
> this info, I'll be all over them. Until then, what what do you suggest I do?
I dunno about Chester, but it seems rather obvious: just stop. It's pointless to spend so many hours doing what you do. You cannot reverse engineer specific chip design details based on layman's misreadings of deliberately vague patents which may or may not even apply to the chips you're talking about.
If you really love reading patents, carry on, just have some humility and grace about it. Stop pretending patent claims are unimpeachable facts when you haven't done the empirical legwork to prove they apply to the subject at hand. And don't get hurt and defensive and angry whenever people question your understanding or interpretation of a patent, especially when you know you aren't a subject matter expert in that field.
