4 ms·
The x86 instructions are translated, not directly executed; There is no implementation of the x86 instruction set in the circuitry.
by CodeArtisan 4y ago
The x86 instructions are translated, not directly executed; There is no implementation of the x86 instruction set in the circuitry.
- codedokode 4y agoIn this case AMD could also claim that they translate instructions in their CPU before execution.
- klelatti 4y agoBack in the 386 days Intel sued AMD for copying their microcode (which is copyrighted) not for reimplementing instructions.
- mark-r 4y agoAnd as I recall Intel lost that suit due to an old cross-licensing agreement. In this case there would be no copying of microcode since the underlying hardware is completely different.
- plasticchris 4y agoI think the point was that the hardware implementation is what could be infringing, it seems you are thinking the instruction set itself is? AMD has the rights to x86, and some like transmeta did x86 translation in the chip.
- selykg 4y agoThe edit OP made now includes that Apple Silicon may infringe, but original wording was just Rosetta. Rosetta isn't infringing, because it's not actually implementing anything other than translation. It is possible AS is infringing on a patent, but that wasn't there originally in the post. New context changes the discussion.