Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hes
From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: NEC V20 8088 compatible microprocessor
Message-ID: <412@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 08:44:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.412
Posted: Fri Sep 13 08:44:55 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 17:13:55 EDT
References: <207@ittral.UUCP> <53400064@trsvax> <3663@amdcad.UUCP> <510@spar.UUCP>
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 17

> > If they are not anywhere close to the same, then why is Intel suing
> > NEC for stealing their microcode?
> > 
> >  Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
> 
> 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
Copying even a portion can be a copyright violation.  If they used the Intel
microcode, and only changed the address calculation parts of it, then Intel
would be suing over the rest.  As I interpret the newspaper articles, NEC's
defense is that it is ok to copy the microcode- they are not claiming that
they didn't copy.
--henry schaffer
disclaimer: anyone who considers my opinions to be legal advice should see an
attorney.