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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Petz who wrote (8689)	9/15/2000 12:41:13 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 275872

RE:"I believe AMD paid for a license to MMX. Prengle used to tweak this thread about it." You are correct. AMD licensed MMX while Cyrix made their own... Maybe AMD can just duplicate SSE? Then a few years from now, no one will care, just like MMX. <G> Jim

To: Petz who wrote (8689)	9/15/2000 12:44:43 PM
From: andreas_wonisch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Petz, you can't patent an instruction set, only the implementation. SSE is a list of instructions, nothing more. As long as AMD doesn't violate any Intel patents for certain SSE function by their SSE/SSE2 implementation in K8 (Mustang?) there is no problem. There could be marketing problems (the name is copyrighted by Intel) but I don't see any legal hurdles for using it. Andreas

To: Petz who wrote (8689)	9/15/2000 1:04:29 PM
From: kapkan4u	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 275872

I am not a lawyer, but I don't think one needs a license to an instruction set to build a compatible processor. I don't think that AMD has a license to SSE/SSE-2 or x86/x87 instructions for that matter. AMD bought a license for MMX, but they did it before Intel made the MMX instructions public. After signing with AMD, Intel released MMX instructions few days later to the public. This was just another illustration of Intel's unscrupulous nature. Kap

To: Petz who wrote (8689)	9/15/2000 1:56:34 PM
From: boris_a	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

John,as far as I remember AMD paid for using the term "MMX". And I never ever heard of IP rights on an instruction set. Are there IP rights on IA-64/VLIW/EPIC? Boris

To: Petz who wrote (8689)	9/15/2000 2:08:25 PM
From: TechieGuy-alt	Respond to of 275872

License Issues: This has been hashed out in the courts in the 70's and 80's. You don't need a license to duplicate functionality- as long as you do a "clean room" design. There are numerous ways to achieve the same result, and the result cannot be copyrighted or patented. As far as I know, AMD did NOT pay intel to use the MMX code. They just acknowledge MMX is an intel trademark. All of course IMHO! TG

To: Petz who wrote (8689)	9/15/2000 6:24:50 PM
From: Charles R	Respond to of 275872

Petz, <Question for all on SSE/SSE2: AKAIK, AMD doesn't have a license for it. Assuming Mustang has or could have SSE or SSE2 support, which of the following situations to you find the most likely? : 1. AMD didn't even try to get a license figuring Intel would face anti-trust action if they tried to claim IP rights on an instruction set 2. AMD was refused a license but they'll use it anyway 3. AMD is still negotiating for a license and for the time being will disable SSE/SSE2 support until negotiations fail or are successful. If negotiations fail they will sue or enable anyway and wait for Intel to sue. I believe AMD paid for a license to MMX. Prengle used to tweak this thread about it.> I don't the answer to your questions but I think the legal risk is small. Typically reverse engineering an instruction set is not a legal issue unless the implementation violates some IP. In the case of AMD/INTC, there is much IP that each other step on to make a CPU and this SSE stuff may not make any difference. Chuck