3 ms·

Something I don't understand here: do we really have to pay ARM for their instruction set? Does AMD pays Intel a fee for using x86? Does Intel pay AMD a fee for

Something I don't understand here: do we really have to pay ARM for their instruction set? Does AMD pays Intel a fee for using x86? Does Intel pay AMD a fee for using their 64 bit extensions? Does anybody pay the inventor of the SSE and AVX instruction sets? Does anybody pays Nintendo for deploying emulators? The ISA is an interface, and as such may not be copyrightable or even patentable. Even if it was, we've had various interoperability exceptions, and one does need an ARM ISA to run a program compiled for ARM. Besides, as far as I know ARM doesn't just license the ISA. It licenses cores. There's a good chance that if you make your own cores to implement an ARM ISA, you wouldn't have to pay any fee. You may however have to get around trademark, and not call your CPUs "ARM CPUs". Though I suspect "ARM compatible" would work perfectly (just like "IBM compatible" worked with third party PC vendors).

dageshi 5y ago
AMD did or does pay for an x86 license, I think to intel?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Pet_Ant 5y ago
  I believe the situation is that they both have relevant patents, especially since AMD went 64 bit, and so they cross-license to each other and call it even.
bluGill 5y ago
Even if you don't have to legally, you want to because those license fees are how the money for the next ISA version are made. It is a prisoners delimma situation where nobody has defected.
toast0 5y ago
> Does AMD pays Intel a fee for using x86? The terms are secret, but basically yes, AMD had access to 386? designs and what not as part of IBMs second source requirements with Intel, but Amd486 and up designs were AMD original with instruction sets under license from Intel, although the licenses were set up after release under litigation. > Does Intel pay AMD a fee for using their 64 bit extensions? Yes / sort of. Use of the AMD64 extentions was negotiated under the broad cross licensing between the two companies. > Does anybody pay the inventor of the SSE and AVX instruction sets? Do the persons involved get royalties? I'd guess not, but who knows. Would you have to pay more to get a license for them, almost certainly. You'll note there's been a lot fewer x86 processor designs not from the big two over the past many years than there were in the late 90s. Some of that is because 'RISC is going to change everything', but a lot of it is becsause nobody can get an x86 license. > Does anybody pays Nintendo for deploying emulators? I don't think so. Patents are too old, and there's not a whole lot of non-Nintendo emulation in the commercial market (but I know Capcom has released some collections, of Megaman games, etc). If those types of releases started including systems with system roms, then you would start having copyright claims. Nintendo has never seriously impeded system emulation; there's just no case to be made. ROM distribution is clear copyright violation though, of course.
- Grazester 5y ago
  Emulators if they are non pattern infringing then no license are needed. See Sony vs Bleem

dageshi 5y ago

AMD did or does pay for an x86 license, I think to intel?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Pet_Ant 5y ago
I believe the situation is that they both have relevant patents, especially since AMD went 64 bit, and so they cross-license to each other and call it even.

bluGill 5y ago

Even if you don't have to legally, you want to because those license fees are how the money for the next ISA version are made. It is a prisoners delimma situation where nobody has defected.

toast0 5y ago

> Does AMD pays Intel a fee for using x86? The terms are secret, but basically yes, AMD had access to 386? designs and what not as part of IBMs second source requirements with Intel, but Amd486 and up designs were AMD original with instruction sets under license from Intel, although the licenses were set up after release under litigation. > Does Intel pay AMD a fee for using their 64 bit extensions? Yes / sort of. Use of the AMD64 extentions was negotiated under the broad cross licensing between the two companies. > Does anybody pay the inventor of the SSE and AVX instruction sets? Do the persons involved get royalties? I'd guess not, but who knows. Would you have to pay more to get a license for them, almost certainly. You'll note there's been a lot fewer x86 processor designs not from the big two over the past many years than there were in the late 90s. Some of that is because 'RISC is going to change everything', but a lot of it is becsause nobody can get an x86 license. > Does anybody pays Nintendo for deploying emulators? I don't think so. Patents are too old, and there's not a whole lot of non-Nintendo emulation in the commercial market (but I know Capcom has released some collections, of Megaman games, etc). If those types of releases started including systems with system roms, then you would start having copyright claims. Nintendo has never seriously impeded system emulation; there's just no case to be made. ROM distribution is clear copyright violation though, of course.

Grazester 5y ago
Emulators if they are non pattern infringing then no license are needed. See Sony vs Bleem