3 ms·

Is that true? AMD implemented the x86 instruction set, Google implemented the Java APIs, what is different about CUDA?

by remram 3y ago

hardware2win 3y ago
Doesnt AMD and Intel have agreement on x86?
- remram 3y ago
  I see
- constantcrying 3y ago
  AMD has an x86 license from Intel and Intel has a x86-64 license from AMD. You can guess how much money lawyers have been paid over that circumstance.
circuit10 3y ago
x86 is protected by patents and only a few companies can use them, that’s why you don’t see random companies making x86 CPUs like they can with ARM (which also needs licensing but it’s much easier to get)
- riemannzeta 3y ago
  Good luck enforcing those software parents though in the current environment. My sense is that hardware companies put more faith in the enforceability of patent claims to something like CUDA than software companies with experience with litigating patent claims to APIs would. Post Oracle v. Google, something like CUDA is vulnerable to being knocked off. And FWIW, that seems to be a reasonable result given the overall market structure at the moment. Having all eggs in the Nvidia basket is great for Nvidia shareholders, but not for customers and probably not even for the health of the surrounding industry.
- rany_ 3y ago
  genuine question, why don't these protections apply to emulators? How could emulators get away with emulating x86 but chip manufacturers cannot use x86 for their chips without a license?
  - remram 3y ago
    Probably fair use, which is a subjective thing but one Intel must be confident enough they would lose. Or just lack of incentive, there is no money for Intel to gain if they win.
    - rany_ 3y ago
      I guess so, it just never occurred to me that X86 emulators would be in a legal gray zone.
- cesarb 3y ago
  The first x86-64 processor has been released more than 20 years ago, so any patents on that base architecture (which includes SSE2) have already expired.

Is that true? AMD implemented the x86 instruction set, Google implemented the Java APIs, what is different about CUDA?

by remram 3y ago

Is that true? AMD implemented the x86 instruction set, Google implemented the Java APIs, what is different about CUDA?

hardware2win 3y ago

Doesnt AMD and Intel have agreement on x86?

remram 3y ago
I see
constantcrying 3y ago
AMD has an x86 license from Intel and Intel has a x86-64 license from AMD. You can guess how much money lawyers have been paid over that circumstance.

circuit10 3y ago

x86 is protected by patents and only a few companies can use them, that’s why you don’t see random companies making x86 CPUs like they can with ARM (which also needs licensing but it’s much easier to get)

riemannzeta 3y ago
Good luck enforcing those software parents though in the current environment. My sense is that hardware companies put more faith in the enforceability of patent claims to something like CUDA than software companies with experience with litigating patent claims to APIs would. Post Oracle v. Google, something like CUDA is vulnerable to being knocked off. And FWIW, that seems to be a reasonable result given the overall market structure at the moment. Having all eggs in the Nvidia basket is great for Nvidia shareholders, but not for customers and probably not even for the health of the surrounding industry.
rany_ 3y ago
genuine question, why don't these protections apply to emulators? How could emulators get away with emulating x86 but chip manufacturers cannot use x86 for their chips without a license?
- remram 3y ago
  Probably fair use, which is a subjective thing but one Intel must be confident enough they would lose. Or just lack of incentive, there is no money for Intel to gain if they win.
  - rany_ 3y ago
    I guess so, it just never occurred to me that X86 emulators would be in a legal gray zone.
cesarb 3y ago
The first x86-64 processor has been released more than 20 years ago, so any patents on that base architecture (which includes SSE2) have already expired.