3 ms·

I wonder if there are (legal) hurdles to Apple adding an additional x86_64 front end to their custom Mac chips to have hardware 'emulation' for backwards compat

by eyesee 6y ago

I wonder if there are (legal) hurdles to Apple adding an additional x86_64 front end to their custom Mac chips to have hardware 'emulation' for backwards compatibility.

gumby 6y ago
They could get around that by simply buying AMD who has an old-but-still valid second source license from intel plus of course the true 64-bit x86 architecture. They could also just license it from Intel. AMD has some hot designers (some who cycled through Apple!) but overall has little to add to Apple (in my ignorant-of-the-true-state-of-Hines opinion. And I admire both companies). Apple’s never been afraid to license something rather than do a perfectly legal legal clean room but-almost-perfect clone. I doubt they’d bother.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  I’ve heard that AMDs license gets voided if the company gets sold.
  - gumby 6y ago
    I suppose that’s possible but quite hard to believe. That license dates back at least to the 286, perhaps And more likely to the 8086 (I’ve long since forgotten) and dates from a time when multi-source parts were not just very common but required for military and most commercial design-ins. So common that when a part didn’t have a second source it was noticeable. The second source agreement had to be transferable else it would defeat its own purpose (if the second source went out of business nobody would buy your part). Now of course I’ve never seen the intel/amd agreement so I’m just speculating as to what it says. But the weight of precedent/tradition makes a prohibition on transfer unlikely.
solarkraft 6y ago
Microsoft has an x86 emulation, so it seems to be okay. It notably doesn't work with 64 bit software. From what I've been able to gather the issue is technical, but I'm very uncertain about it.
colejohnson66 6y ago
Worth remembering it was AMD who created x86_64. It was Intel who created x86. Granted, they’ve both added their own features on top of the basic x86_64 set, so it would be a legal hurdle.

by eyesee 6y ago

I wonder if there are (legal) hurdles to Apple adding an additional x86_64 front end to their custom Mac chips to have hardware 'emulation' for backwards compatibility.

gumby 6y ago

They could get around that by simply buying AMD who has an old-but-still valid second source license from intel plus of course the true 64-bit x86 architecture. They could also just license it from Intel. AMD has some hot designers (some who cycled through Apple!) but overall has little to add to Apple (in my ignorant-of-the-true-state-of-Hines opinion. And I admire both companies). Apple’s never been afraid to license something rather than do a perfectly legal legal clean room but-almost-perfect clone. I doubt they’d bother.

mr_toad 6y ago
I’ve heard that AMDs license gets voided if the company gets sold.
- gumby 6y ago
  I suppose that’s possible but quite hard to believe. That license dates back at least to the 286, perhaps And more likely to the 8086 (I’ve long since forgotten) and dates from a time when multi-source parts were not just very common but required for military and most commercial design-ins. So common that when a part didn’t have a second source it was noticeable. The second source agreement had to be transferable else it would defeat its own purpose (if the second source went out of business nobody would buy your part). Now of course I’ve never seen the intel/amd agreement so I’m just speculating as to what it says. But the weight of precedent/tradition makes a prohibition on transfer unlikely.

solarkraft 6y ago

Microsoft has an x86 emulation, so it seems to be okay. It notably doesn't work with 64 bit software. From what I've been able to gather the issue is technical, but I'm very uncertain about it.

colejohnson66 6y ago

Worth remembering it was AMD who created x86_64. It was Intel who created x86. Granted, they’ve both added their own features on top of the basic x86_64 set, so it would be a legal hurdle.