4 ms·
You can copyright code / implementation but you can't copyright the behaviour of an individual instruction! It's very unlikely but there could conceivably be a
by klelatti 4y ago
You can copyright code / implementation but you can't copyright the behaviour of an individual instruction!
It's very unlikely but there could conceivably be a patent, but it would have long since expired.
No case to answer.
Edit: Just to clarify - referring to treatment of one instruction here. As peer comment has said Rosetta translates ISA rather than implements so it's even further removed from being a copyright issue.
- cesarb 4y ago> It's very unlikely but there could conceivably be a patent, but it would have long since expired. For those who weren't following the 32-bit to 64-bit transition on the x86 world back then, the x86-64 ISA is from the year 2000 (https://web.archive.org/web/20000817014037/http://www.x86-64.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/20000817014037/http://www.x86-64...), so any patent which applies to that ISA (without the ISA being prior art for the patent) is now over 20 years old.
- BlackFingolfin 4y agoThe x86-64 extension was made by AMD, though, not by Intel. So if at all the license would have to be obtained from AMD... Interestingly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64 says this: > x86-64/AMD64 was solely developed by AMD. AMD holds patents on techniques used in AMD64; those patents must be licensed from AMD in order to implement AMD64
- klelatti 4y agoThanks. I guess I was thinking that any patents on the instruction in the original article and of FP behaviour would predate 64-bit, but you're right that there could be relevant patents on x86-64. Thinking aloud, I wonder if AVX 512 is translated?
- generichuman 4y agoAVX instructions are not supported. See here: https://medium.com/macoclock/m1-rosetta-2-limitation-illegal-hardware-instruction-a3b48fae02e https://medium.com/macoclock/m1-rosetta-2-limitation-illegal...