Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!amdcad!phil
From: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: NEC V20 8088 compatible microproces
Message-ID: <3737@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Sep-85 02:03:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.3737
Posted: Tue Sep 10 02:03:41 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 05:40:13 EDT
References: <207@ittral.UUCP> <53400064@trsvax> <3663@amdcad.UUCP> <510@spar.UUCP>
Reply-To: phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 25

In article <510@spar.UUCP> baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) writes:
>pretty inconclusive and at times contradictory.  My question is: If NEC
>*did* steal Intel's microcode, why are the V20s reported to be 15% faster than
>their born-in-the-USA brethren, at the same CPU clock rate?
>
>						Baba


I imagine they did "clever and original" things like put an adder in the 
addressing unit so that the execution unit doesn't have to share its adder,
allowing more concurrency. I put "clever and original" in quotes because 
Intel did the same thing (first?) in their 80186.

So obviously they didn't take the microcode bit for bit. If they changed
just one bit, is it stealing? What about 100? We have a slippery slope
here but if I were the judge, I would probably rule NEC's action was
improper if there were a substantial similarity to Intel's microcode.

-- 
 A hacker is someone who orders Sweet and Sour Bitter Melon just because
 it is "an impossible combination".

 Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
 ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA