4 ms·

Those slides aren't the only thing they copied: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669508 https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669

by ledoge 5y ago

Those slides aren't the only thing they copied: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669508 https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669508

curiousgal 5y ago
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Books are published in batches of 'n' characters called sentences. Really, Twitter is just another medium.
- snovv_crash 5y ago
  If you don't believe data presented by the guy who was editor for Anandtech for how many years, that's on you.
  - gruez 5y ago
    To be fair not everyone knows who @IanCutress is. The profile description of "Consultant, Chief Analyst, Influencer." doesn't really indicate he's a subject matter expert.
    - rahimiali 5y ago
      It doesn’t matter who these people are. If you’ve seen patents before, you can cause from the screenshots how similar the diagrams are to the sources.
- monocasa 5y ago
  It's literally quotes from an article he wrote about Zen for Anandtech cribbed in the patent.
dmatech 5y ago
So they cited Ian's 2016 article (which contained the AMD diagrams), then basically rendered those same diagrams in black and white in the patent. Pretty lazy.
- pkilgore 5y ago
  You never use StackOverflow or similar?
  - Sparkyte 5y ago
    A lot of people use StackOverflow but people blindly copying StackOverflow is just as dumb. When I use it, I use it to understand the problem. I then write my own logic understanding the issues wrapped around the similar error. But some solutions are too simple to not be similar.
  - Qub3d 5y ago
    Obviously most devs will answer yes to this question. However, I don't think the implied conclusion (software devs copy each other, so the legal apparatus applied to software is okay doing so, too) is a valid one. For one, this is hardware. And second, even if this was software, that just reinforces the farce that is software patents -- another reason to add to the list of why patents on software shouldn't be a thing.

by ledoge 5y ago

Those slides aren't the only thing they copied: https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669508 https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1511718827083669508

curiousgal 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago
Books are published in batches of 'n' characters called sentences. Really, Twitter is just another medium.
snovv_crash 5y ago
If you don't believe data presented by the guy who was editor for Anandtech for how many years, that's on you.
- gruez 5y ago
  To be fair not everyone knows who @IanCutress is. The profile description of "Consultant, Chief Analyst, Influencer." doesn't really indicate he's a subject matter expert.
  - rahimiali 5y ago
    It doesn’t matter who these people are. If you’ve seen patents before, you can cause from the screenshots how similar the diagrams are to the sources.
monocasa 5y ago
It's literally quotes from an article he wrote about Zen for Anandtech cribbed in the patent.

dmatech 5y ago

So they cited Ian's 2016 article (which contained the AMD diagrams), then basically rendered those same diagrams in black and white in the patent. Pretty lazy.

pkilgore 5y ago
You never use StackOverflow or similar?
- Sparkyte 5y ago
  A lot of people use StackOverflow but people blindly copying StackOverflow is just as dumb. When I use it, I use it to understand the problem. I then write my own logic understanding the issues wrapped around the similar error. But some solutions are too simple to not be similar.
- Qub3d 5y ago
  Obviously most devs will answer yes to this question. However, I don't think the implied conclusion (software devs copy each other, so the legal apparatus applied to software is okay doing so, too) is a valid one. For one, this is hardware. And second, even if this was software, that just reinforces the farce that is software patents -- another reason to add to the list of why patents on software shouldn't be a thing.