Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!sun!ember!dre
From: dre%ember@Sun.COM (David Emberson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Split I and D caches and IBM lawyers
Summary: IBM patent claims
Message-ID: <62555@sun.uucp>
Date: 3 Aug 88 01:01:39 GMT
References: <62370@sun.uucp> <15086@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 16

In article <15086@apple.Apple.COM>, baum@Apple.COM (Allen J. Baum) writes:
> 
> In summary: IBM patents are not without foundation. They are diligent about
> researching prior art. The patents are strong, well written patents, and do
> not make wild claims about inventing fundamental concepts (unless, of course,
> they actually did, which is not an uncommon case).

It seems to me that in this case they patented, among other things, setting a
bit under software control.

The idea of managing the contents of a cache memory under software control 
sounds like something that is a fundamental, obvious idea to me.  I have no
doubt that even this patent is well written.  IBM has the money to afford the
best legal talent in the country.  But the garage entrepreneurs don't, and
that is my major point.  The present system stifles innovation and works to
the benefit of the largest, most powerful, richest companies.  The patent
system was intended to protect inventors, not monopolies.