Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Comments
Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
firefalcon
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
firefalcon   6/26/2013 9:41:27 PM
NO RATINGS
1. The PicoTurbo case was actually a loss for ARM. PicoTurbo showed the holes in ARM's patents (specifically prior art and the ability to implement patented functionality differently). ARM paid PicoTurbo millions of dollars to go away. 2. It is important to understand that interfaces (i.e., the instruction set) are not covered under patents or copyrights. ARM patents specific implementations of features mandated by the instruction set; that is how they protect themselves. It is legal to implement the latest ARM instruction set using techniques not covered by ARM's patents.

Tony Lange
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
Tony Lange   6/27/2013 3:25:56 AM
NO RATINGS
What happened to PicoTurbo? Their website is gone. So what exactly an infringement? Does 1% difference in design make it legel?

ip2design
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
ip2design   6/27/2013 7:09:07 AM
NO RATINGS
Hello, are you sure that Instruction Set is not the central issue ? Remember Mips vs Lexra litigation around unaligned load and store.

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
Peter Clarke   6/27/2013 10:44:12 AM
NO RATINGS
PicoTurbo eventually settled out of court. I would say it was a win for ARM. PicoTurbo acknowledged ARM's patents and its rights to enforce them and agreed to stop its sales and marketing efforts on the disputed products and IP. PicoTurbo's existing customers were "legitimized" by ARM and allowed to go to market with support from PicoTurbo. As PicoTurbo could no longer sell I think the company was dissolved soon after this happened in December 2001.

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
Peter Clarke   6/27/2013 10:47:40 AM
NO RATINGS
I don't know if ARM paid PicoTurbo "millions to go away" as part of the settlement. If that is right i might have to change my position on it being a win for ARM. But even if they did spend millions it was probably money will spent to send out the message that there is little to be gained commercially by trying to clone an ARM processor.

firefalcon
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
firefalcon   6/28/2013 2:49:25 AM
NO RATINGS
ARM paid picoTurbo $11 million to "win" the lawsuit. See the 6th paragraph: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/19/arm_to_take_pound/

firefalcon
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
firefalcon   6/28/2013 2:52:01 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes I am sure that interfaces (the ISA in this case) are not patentable or copyrightable. To be sure, look at the paperwork in the PicoTurbo case. The patents ARM sued about were about implementations of the ISA, not the ISA itself.

firefalcon
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
firefalcon   6/28/2013 2:56:13 AM
NO RATINGS
I think PicoTurbo showed that best defense is prior art. Other than that, you have to show that your implementation is meaningfully (approaching 100%) different than what ARM has valid patents for. Note that the patents cover only a small part of the processor though.

firefalcon
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
firefalcon   6/28/2013 3:02:52 AM
NO RATINGS
Here is a link to a court case where Oracle tried to copyright the Java API and sued Google...Oracle lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_v._Google

firefalcon
User Rank
Author
re: Cambridge Calling: The rise of the ARM clones
firefalcon   6/28/2013 3:04:48 AM
NO RATINGS
Here is the pertinent blurb, "So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or method header lines are identical."

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
As data rates begin to move beyond 25 Gbps channels, new problems arise. Getting to 50 Gbps channels might not be possible with the traditional NRZ (2-level) signaling. PAM4 lets data rates double with only a small increase in channel bandwidth by sending two bits per symbol. But, it brings new measurement and analysis problems. Signal integrity sage Ransom Stephens will explain how PAM4 differs from NRZ and what to expect in design, measurement, and signal analysis.

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...
The LT®6375 is a unity-gain difference amplifier which ...
The LTC®4015 is a complete synchronous buck controller/ ...
10:35
The LTC®2983 measures a wide variety of temperature sensors ...
The LTC®3886 is a dual PolyPhase DC/DC synchronous ...
The LTC®2348-18 is an 18-bit, low noise 8-channel ...
The LT®3042 is a high performance low dropout linear ...
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...