Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA
From: GUBBINS@RADC-TOPS20.ARPA (Gern)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: NEC V20 ---> 8088
Message-ID: <1565@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 09:47:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1565
Posted: Wed Sep 18 09:47:57 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 03:29:42 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 24

The problem is that I have seen a lot of cases (some involving NEC)
in which you take a 'legal' chip and camouflage it making it very
difficult to determine that this was a pirate design and not a redesign.
A software example is simply to do a global change of each variable
name, move the subroutines all around, renumber the program, and then 
just to make sure, modify on your own the main part of the program,
along with any other short-cuts and/or improvements you happen to see
along the way.   I believe a recent issue of IEEE Spectrum covered
such things.   There were several examples shown, one of which was
a magnification of two completely different looking chips, with the
same function.   They did not even look close to each other, but after
the artical told you what to look for, they were identical in every
way.   The problem is, it is difficult to prove it, get it to court,
especially between an American company and a non-American one, and 
get people to believe it.   I wish I could go into some juicy specifics,
but...

The opinions expressed are that of my own and usually that of my
friends too, and may or may not be those of the USAF which won't tell,
but will get on my case if I say anything more.

Cheers,
Gern
-------


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com