Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ecn-pc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!ecn-pc!wdm
From: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: NEC V20 8088 compatible microproces
Message-ID: <384@ecn-pc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 11:20:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecn-pc.384
Posted: Fri Sep 13 11:20:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 07:15:29 EDT
References: <207@ittral.UUCP> <53400064@trsvax> <3663@amdcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael)
Organization: Electrical Engineering Department , Purdue University
Lines: 22
Summary: 

In article <3663@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <53400064@trsvax> mikey@trsvax writes:
>>The V30 is the equivalent part for the 8086, the V20 is the 8088 chip. 
>>As I understand it, the V20 and V30 are not anywhere close to the same
>>as their Intel brothers internally, just that they operate the same
>
>If they are not anywhere close to the same, then why is Intel suing
>NEC for stealing their microcode?
>
>If NEC is in fact using Intel's microcode without permission, that would
>seem to be the same kind of thing as making an illegal copy of Lotus 1-2-3.
>On a huge scale. Actually, it would be like making a business of selling
>illegal copies of 1-2-3.
>

    I thought the 8086 and 8088 were actually random logic machines, and
    so had no microcode.  Is that wrong?

bill  
 
(wdm@pur-ee)