Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!max!crisp
From: crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: 386 Clones
Message-ID: <42384@mips.mips.COM>
Date: 25 Oct 90 15:54:05 GMT
References: <10833@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <35204@cup.portal.com>
Sender: news@mips.COM
Reply-To: crisp@mips.COM (Richard Crisp)
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Lines: 21

In article <35204@cup.portal.com> mslater@cup.portal.com (Michael Z Slater) writes:
>AMD is sampling parts that are rumored to be in much better shape than Nick's
>piece would imply.  These parts use Intel's microcode, and don't have to work
>around Intel's patents.  The mask design is original, but probably follow's
>Intel's logic design very closely.

After the landmark Brooktree versus AMD case involving infringement under
the Semiconductor Protection Act of 1984 (the Mask Work Act), I'd be careful
about claiming the maskwork of AMD's '386 clone being original. In the 
Brooktree case, a single cell (the static RAM cell of the RAMDAC) was found
to have been infringed by AMD. There sure a lot of cells in a '386! My
bet is that Intel will closely examine every square micron of the AMD
die and if they find any similarity, will probably add maskwork infringement
claims to whatever they sue AMD for (and they *will* sue AMD)!


-- 
		    Richard Crisp              crisp@mips.com
		MIPS Computer Systems        !decwrl!mips!crisp
		 928 Arques MS 2-02            (408) 524-8177
		 Sunnyvale, Ca 94086