Well, I'm getting ready to recieve 5000 units a week made with (ugh) PIC clones. I hope to hell you guys fears are unfounded. I for one can't sleep at night and have taken up baldness and biting my fingernails back to the second knuckle. -- Lawrence Lile -----Original Message----- From: Eric Smith To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 6:57 PM Subject: Re: Illegal???? Micon Knockoff of PICs - >neil wrote: >> If I recall right Microchip did not invent the PIC processor. It was >> available from >> Intersil before there was a Microchip. the 16x54 series was available in >> MOS technology and used in many early cable TV boxes. > >No. General Instruments developed the original PIC processors in the 70s. >Intersil was not involved. GI spun off their microelectronics group as >Microchip Technologies. So Microchip definitely does own the PIC. > >However, what does this ownership mean? Clearly no one else can use their >trademarks (including "PICmicro") for a competing product. No one else >can copy their copyrighted software, data sheets, and documentation. No one >else can make exact copies of PIC dice (the actually silicon layout). > >But beyond that, the only thing preventing cloning the PIC architecture is >patent law. Microchip does have some patents relating to PICs, but they are >very peripheral to the architecture. For instance, some of their patents >cover the way that they implement code protection and brownout detection. >Both of those things can be done differently without seriously compromising >compatability. > >Even if they had some patents on the CPU core architecture, they would have >long since expired, since there were NMOS PICs in the 70s that had the >same basic architecture. > >For my own part, however, I wouldn't use a PIC clone without doing an >extremely thorough evaluation. The PIC isn't an extremely compex part, >but it is complex enough that it would be easy for a would-be cloner to >make mistakes and wind up with a not-quite-compatible part.