|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 01 2012 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
AMD and Intel have a cross-license of copyrights and patents. AMD used to pay
Intel for the cross-license but now that Intel has Adopted AMDs 64 bit
instruction set AMD had the leverage to negotiate for a royalty-free license.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 01:49 AM EDT |
When we get down to the execution of machine code in a CPU, then we are dealing
purely with numbers. So for example [and I am making up the hex codes]
&80 = JSR (Jump to SubRoutine)
&81 = LDA (Load Accumulator)
&82 = BCS (Branch Carry Set)
&83 = BCC (Branch Carry Clear)
etc, etc
The hex op-codes that have a meaning to the CPU are essentially nothing more
than binary patterns. When those patterns are pushed by the chip's shunt logic
into the CPU's registers, those binary patterns cause the silicon logic gates to
perform a repeatable, non-discretionary response. There is zero interpretive
interaction going on. Fire the binary for JSR at a CPU and it will always,
always, always do the same thing.
Moreover, that "thing" which we are talking about is a transformation
in binary mathematical terms...
0 AND 0 = 0
1 AND 0 = 0
0 AND 1 = 0
1 AND 1 = 1
and so on.
Whilst the sum total of all of these billions of mathematical transformations -
i.e. executing software - might do something wonderful... the individual
components are not, themselves, that significant. Nor are they individually
creative.
The first builder or construction worker to develop what in the UK we call a
"house brick" would be equivalent to the guy that invented the first
silicon logic gate from transistor arrays. Having patented the development of
the house brick, does it follow that the *design* of every house built with it
can be patented? No, of course not, that's absurd. So how could a house design
be infringed? Simple: through copyright. If the design of two houses was
substantially similar, then we could argue that copyright was infringed.
But... the accumulated assembly of house bricks to make a house... no matter how
ingenious the design... is not patentable.
In the same way, a program comprised of millions of binary op-codes is like a
binary house. Lots of bricks. Creative assembly. Creativity covered by
copyright. In this case, it's creative design, not invention. The latter is
patent-able; the former is not.
Software is the former.
Good little diversion, this one![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
