Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (92181)	11/12/1999 3:14:00 AM
From: Saturn V	Respond to of 186894

Ref - <IMS patent > The claims are the critical issue. The claims appear to describe emulation on any computer. Correct me if I am wrong, I fail to see the difference between the IMS patent and emulators developed for the IBM 360 to emulate older IBM machines.If I am right,it will be clearly invalid patent. I would appreciate your comments and other people with knowledge of computer architecture like Scumbria. I believe that many companies stopped patenting computer architecture. Computer Architects are very conservative, and make only small incremental changes.[ Most attempts at major change have been dismal failures like Fairchild SYMBOL, and Intel 432]. So advances in computer architecture have been a continuous succession of small incremental changes. It is difficult to patent small incremental change. So if a patent examiner does not know the state of art and the history of computer architecture, and merely reads prior patents, he will approve a patent of something which is already known.