So binary compatibility with any CPU will never infringe anything? Can this=
 be
affirmed safely?


At 18.40 2011.10.16, you wrote:
>Electron wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> now that the original ARM patents are (supposedly!) expired, anyone=20
>can design
>> a CPU (I do not mean copy an existing ARM core, but design one from scra=
tch)
>> and not incur in patent infringment?
>>
>> And, when the original ARM patents were still in place, was it legal=20
>to design
>> and sell a CPU binary-compatible with ARM (not licensing anything of cou=
rse)?
>>
>> This of course depends if the opcodes were part of their patent, but ass=
uming
>> they were..
>>
>> Just (very) curious. Of all the CPU's I programmed for (many), I=20
>think the ARM
>> has the most beautiful instruction set. Expecially the "all instructions=
 are
>> conditional", although not exclusive of ARM, is just so nice on it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mario
>>
>>  =20
>Copyright and patents are separate things. Without  a Patent you can=20
>even copy  if there is expired copyright.
>Zilog used different names on Z80 mnemonics  of  Assembler  to  avoid =20
>copyright  infringement  of the  8080  mnemonics.  But many actual =20
>opcodes the  same  (Z80 is a  superset that  100% runs 8080 binary).
>
>Even with patents and copyrights there are ways to  design  from scratch=20
>and  not  get in trouble for infringement,  but  you need  clever=20
>engineers and  very good  lawyers.=20
>
>--=20
>http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
>View/change your membership options at
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.