nicholso@hpesoc1.HP.COM (Ron Nicholson) (11/29/88)
What I don't understand is this: how do RISC designers protect their investment. A large part of the investment seems to be in deciding what not to implement. This becomes public when the instruction set manual is published. There is a big business in 370 compatibles. Zilog got a big piece of the micro market by cloning the 8080 instruction set. All they had to change was the instruction set mnemonics to get around the Intel copyright. RISC processors have a lower design complexity than CISC processors in the same performance range, and they are architected to be independent of any particular implementation or technology. This should make them much easier to clone. So what's the deal. Is the instruction set a trade secret? Can some of the whiz-bang instructions only be done well by an IC layout which is copyrighted? Can an instruction be patented completely independently of how it is implemented? Is, perhaps, the collection of instructions patented? Maybe the architecture only works well with a compiler that is very difficult to implement. But does this make a difference in the shrink-wrap ABI type market? Maybe an ASCII dump of common instruction sequences spell "Copyright 19XX Acme-RISC Co." or the register set comes up with that message after a reset. If the instruction set is protected by patent or copyright, does that mean that a software company that writes an instruction set simulator is infringing? How about if that simulator is implemented in microcode or special hardware? ---- Ron Nicholson - Hewlett Packard - Cupertino, CA #include <canonical disclaimer>
alverson@decwrl.dec.com (Robert Alverson) (11/30/88)
The obvious reason is that reverse-engineering a RISC would take at least 1 year. Without having your own compilers, you have to match exactly, so you have very few opportunities to improve on the original design. So why not just buy their chip instead? However, the real reason is that people who want to design RISC chips are arrogant. They are confident that they can do better--they wouldn't *want* to repeat the "mistakes" of the original designers. :) Bob
karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer #) (12/01/88)
In article <5030006@hpesoc1.HP.COM>, nicholso@hpesoc1.HP.COM (Ron Nicholson) writes: > What I don't understand is this: how do RISC designers protect their > investment. A large part of the investment seems to be in deciding what > not to implement. This becomes public when the instruction set manual is > published. Most of the RISC vendors seem to have realized that the path to success for their chip is for it to be designed into a lot of equipment, that is, to be successful the chip needs to be popular and sell well. Consequently, rather than guarding their designs they are trying very hard to license them and and get them second-sourced. For example, SPARC. In other word, RISC vendors hope to "protect their investment" by selling a lot of chips. -- -- +1 713 274 5184, uunet!ficc!karl -- Ferranti International Controls, 12808 W. Airport Blvd., Sugar Land, TX 77478
mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) (12/01/88)
In article <2329@ficc.uu.net> karl@ficc.uu.net (karl lehenbauer #) writes: ..... >Most of the RISC vendors seem to have realized that the path to success for >their chip is for it to be designed into a lot of equipment, that is, to be >successful the chip needs to be popular and sell well. Consequently, rather >than guarding their designs they are trying very hard to license them and >and get them second-sourced. For example, SPARC. In other word, RISC vendors >hope to "protect their investment" by selling a lot of chips. Most = SPARC & MIPS, maybe ARM (?). Clipper, 29K, 88K, 80960, Precision, etc. are not currently licensed/2nd sourced (for various different reasons). -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: <generic disclaimer, I speak for me only, etc> UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086
rcbaps@eutrc3.UUCP (Pieter Schoenmakers) (12/02/88)
In article <9092@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: >Most = SPARC & MIPS, maybe ARM (?). Clipper, 29K, 88K, 80960, Precision, etc. >are not currently licensed/2nd sourced (for various different reasons). ARM is produced by VLSI Technologies; 2nd source Sanyo and maybe in the future Thompson. ---Tiggr
maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) (12/06/88)
In article <9092@winchester.mips.COM> mash@mips.COM (John Mashey) writes: > >Most = SPARC & MIPS, maybe ARM (?). Clipper, 29K, 88K, 80960, Precision, etc. I am pretty sure the ARM design is freely avalible for anyone to build copies. /*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/ JANET: maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu BITNET: maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL ARPA: maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk UUCP: maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995