Mr. Heidner:

I am not advocating the emulation of an IA-64, as I beleive they will cheap
enough to not be worth emulating. As well, I also beleive the classic can be
emulated to an extent to provide a relatively powerful performance level
able to make it usefull given the speed of the underlying processor
technology today.

Stuart
Beverly Hills, CA, USA


"Dennis Heidner" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:01c13683$c6b8cca0$031e82c0@bigbird...
> Stuart wrote > "I think if you are trying to say that building a processor
> (even
> if it is a software based and not microcode based processor, as in the
> instant case) is illegal, the folks at AMD would have quite a fair amount
> to
> teach you. "
>
> They were able to do so, because of the license agreements that they had
> originally signed in the early 80's when they were second sourcing the
> Intel parts.  The license agreement gave them the right to use the basic
> design of the then 8086, 80286, and follow on technologies.  In the mid
> 90's there were some pretty nasty lawsuits between AMD and Intel about
> those same agreements.  I believe AMD nailed Intel on some patent
> infringements,  in the end they settled by cross licensing some of the
> technologies in question.  Perhaps in part because Intel was ready to
start
> working on IA-64.
>
> There were also a series of lawsuits between General Instruments and Data
> General over the Data General "Nova" instruction set.  I believe the GI
> part was later discontinued.
>
> As for an emulation of the classic instruction set, I doubt that HP would
> be overly concerned,  even the PA-RISC instruction set may no longer be an
> issue.  I suspect that you'd get nailed by Intel and HP if you tried doing
> the IA-64.
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *