|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 06:08 PM EDT |
There's been a lot of litigation on that front. If I Remember Correctly it was
common practice for manufacturers to require a second source for components so
chip makers often licensed their designs to each other. AMD had an license to
make 286 chips and when the 386 came out there was a dispute Intel sued saying
AMD's license didn't allow them to make 386 chips. Eventually AMD won.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
Intel did claim ownership of the x86 instruction-sets using patent claims
(thankfully those have expired, being over 20 years old). More evidence that it
doesn't make sense (and is commonly accepted) for copyright protection to be
applied to APIs and similar "ideas".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 06:57 PM EDT |
8080 and Z80 have slightly different instruction sets. Besides added functions
in the Z80, the parity flag behavior during subtraction is different for the
two.
http://fixunix.com/cp-m/252349-z80-8080-tester-program.html discusses the
differences, and gives at the bottom of the page a two-line assembly program to
distinguish Z80 from 8080: subtract A from itself, then conditionally jump on
the parity flag.
If I recall correctly, one famous program that would not run on the Z80, was the
8080 version of Microsoft BASIC.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
