Re: Universal Processor (was Re: [oc] x86 IP Core)

["Jim Dempsey" <tapedisk@ameritech.net>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Dalton" <john.dalton@bigfoot.com>
<snip> 
> As a side note, perhaps such an architecture would
> not infringe on 'rights' of other companies?  As far
> as I know, it is not illegal to describe an instruction set.
> The 'translator compiler' would be a novel stand alone
> development (possibly worthy of its own patent).  Such
> a compiler could hardly infringe a patent on the
> implementation of a microprocessor instruction, as
> its behaviour is entirely dependent on any machine
> description fed to it.  Claiming infringement would
> be like claiming a VHDL compiler infringes since
> given the right source file as input it can produce
> an 'illegal' microprocessor.
> 

The Patent covers the design and/or method, not how it
is derrived. If you hired a million monkeys and gave them
pencils and then they re-derrived an invention covered
by Patent then that gives you no right to bypass the protection
of the Patent. I assume this also applies to automated methods
to reconstruct the design or method based or not based on
a description.

Jim Dempsey



--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml