Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!labrea!decwrl!sun!ember!dre
From: dre%ember@Sun.COM (David Emberson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Split I and D caches and IBM lawyers
Keywords: IBM, patents, Harvard architecture
Message-ID: <62370@sun.uucp>
Date: 2 Aug 88 01:19:03 GMT
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 37


Now that IBM has supposedly "invented" Harvard architecture with cache
memories, I think it would be interesting to try to list machines that used
this "new" technique prior to IBM's lawyers laying claim to it.  I know that
I worked on designs at Prime that had separate I and D caches as early as
1978.  But none of these made it out of the lab, at least that I am aware of.

How about the MC88000?  Would it be a violation of IBM's "patent" to use one
88100 with *two* 88200s?  I haven't seen the patent itself.  Does anyone know
what the patent claims are?

If ever there was a case which proved the need for more vigilance on the part
of the patent office and the legal profession, this is it.  Unfortunately,
abuse of the patent laws by big companies like IBM and the unfortunate legal-
ization of the patenting of algorithms is going to have the effect of destroy-
ing opportunities for small startup companies in the high technology sector.

What investor would put even a small amount of seed capital into a company
unless the poor entrepreneur had already gone to the expense of performing
patent searches on even the most trivial of ideas to prove that the investment
was safe?  What garage entrepreneur can afford the $50K charged by your average 
shyster for EACH patent search?

For the record, I do not speak for Sun Microsystems on this issue and I do not
know anything other than what I have read in the press about the letter Sun
received from IBM.  McNealy says that we are not in violation of any of the
patents, and I will take him at his word.  At least he has integrity, unlike 
IBM.  It seems to me that they feel threatened by new, better technology and 
want to buy time by turning loose their dogs, er, lawyers.  Every scientist
and engineer in this country should be appalled by their behaviour.  Common
subexpression elimination?  Gimme a break!  Single cycle mask and rotate
instructions?  Come on!  Where will this end?

We need a patent system that 1) prevents trivial claims, 2) is inexpensive,
and 3) provides protection for small companies and entrepreneurs.  Abuse of the
system by greedy monopolists should be punished.

			Dave Emberson (dre@sun.com)