5 ms·

The issue is that given two hardware engineers both of them would have come up with the same clever design. In fact I'm almost certain this could be posed as a

The issue is that given two hardware engineers both of them would have come up with the same clever design. In fact I'm almost certain this could be posed as a constraint satisfaction problem and I could even get a SAT solver to come up with the same design. The mathematical constraints basically force the design. So I disagree with you. It is indeed an abstract truth. The foundations are axiomatic. There are only so many theorems (clever tricks) you can come up with given the foundation. The law overstepped because of fundamental misunderstandings of how the engineering, theory, and practice are combined in something like software and hardware design. I also did not say there shouldn't be limited forms of protection to enable the license based business model but being able to outmaneuver your competitor legally instead of through proper design and engineering is why progress is hampered and why the patent model is fundamentally broken.

rayiner 10y ago
But they didn't. Berkeley RISC predates MIPS and simply punts on the issue of unaligned loads. Other contemporary designs handled them in microcode.
- dkarapetyan 10y ago
  That's fine. Plenty of mathematical theories still have theorems left to prove. It still doesn't change the fundamental and theoretical nature of the discipline. I'm trying to drive the point home that much of hardware and software design is a lot like "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" and patents in that context don't make sense.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    In my opinion, you have to distinguish between situations where you use math to evaluate particular points in a design space, and situations where there is a correct solution that follows directly from the math. Most things in software are not examples of the former. They're just different points in a design space of solutions, just like with any other engineering field. The MIPS unaligned load instructions are an example of that. Just one way to do things. Not even a particular good way, considering that they've long been out of patent protection and nobody has implemented them in another architecture.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  I have little problem with protection for how MIPS handles unaligned loads; I have a huge problem with the mere existence of that patent making it financially untenable for Lexra to defend an implementation of the same instructions with a trap, something that I hope we can all agree is unfortunate.
- makomk 10y ago
  Except that Lexra didn't implement unaligned loads at all. According to the post, MIPS considered the mere possibility that you could handle unaligned loads through an OS-level trap that emulated the load - not even in microcode - to infringe their patent and managed to shake up several of Lexra's customers that way. (This is another flaw of patent law. In order for something to count as prior art it has to be identical to the claimed technology, but the same requirement doesn't apply to infringement claims.)

rayiner 10y ago

But they didn't. Berkeley RISC predates MIPS and simply punts on the issue of unaligned loads. Other contemporary designs handled them in microcode.

dkarapetyan 10y ago
That's fine. Plenty of mathematical theories still have theorems left to prove. It still doesn't change the fundamental and theoretical nature of the discipline. I'm trying to drive the point home that much of hardware and software design is a lot like "a^2 + b^2 = c^2" and patents in that context don't make sense.
- rayiner 10y ago
  In my opinion, you have to distinguish between situations where you use math to evaluate particular points in a design space, and situations where there is a correct solution that follows directly from the math. Most things in software are not examples of the former. They're just different points in a design space of solutions, just like with any other engineering field. The MIPS unaligned load instructions are an example of that. Just one way to do things. Not even a particular good way, considering that they've long been out of patent protection and nobody has implemented them in another architecture.
aidenn0 10y ago
I have little problem with protection for how MIPS handles unaligned loads; I have a huge problem with the mere existence of that patent making it financially untenable for Lexra to defend an implementation of the same instructions with a trap, something that I hope we can all agree is unfortunate.
makomk 10y ago
Except that Lexra didn't implement unaligned loads at all. According to the post, MIPS considered the mere possibility that you could handle unaligned loads through an OS-level trap that emulated the load - not even in microcode - to infringe their patent and managed to shake up several of Lexra's customers that way. (This is another flaw of patent law. In order for something to count as prior art it has to be identical to the claimed technology, but the same requirement doesn't apply to infringement claims.)