4 ms·

> What kind of economy is this One with patents. I presume that if we didn't have patents for processor architectures, competition would have made these pract

> What kind of economy is this One with patents. I presume that if we didn't have patents for processor architectures, competition would have made these practices completely unviable, and we wouldn't have had a decades-long duopoly in the CPU market.

tsimionescu 3y ago
I very much doubt the patents are the problem in this case. Especially since, if there hadn't been patents, they would have just had everything as trade secrets. It's not like patenting rounded corners, most of the stuff that gives Intel and AMD an edge is highly complex and innovative.
- runeks 3y ago
  That’s the essential problem with parents: nobody really know how it affects competition. And therefore the status quo doesn’t change. I think we should swap the burden of proof: patents should be abolished if it cannot be shown that they’re a net positive for consumers. We shouldn’t be supporting a practice whose effect is unknown and possibly detrimental to consumers.
- runeks 3y ago
  > Especially since, if there hadn't been patents, they would have just had everything as trade secrets. Reverse engineering the x86 instruction set would be rather trivial for even a small company. Releasing a x86 product, however, is not possible because of patents and Intel lawyers.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Look at companies like Cyrix for example. They made some good 86x processors in the 90s but were also constantly involved in legal battles. AMD was literally in an ongoing legal battle for 20 years straight. In the 90s you had other companies that could have built x86 chips, if they would have been allowed two. Digital Alpha was the bases for the AMD chips that kicked Intel so hard that they resorted paying their supplier to not adopt it. Digital could have done a x86 but they would have been in a lawsuit with intel. Intel also didn't really have an advantage on the node for most of that period.

tsimionescu 3y ago

I very much doubt the patents are the problem in this case. Especially since, if there hadn't been patents, they would have just had everything as trade secrets. It's not like patenting rounded corners, most of the stuff that gives Intel and AMD an edge is highly complex and innovative.

runeks 3y ago
That’s the essential problem with parents: nobody really know how it affects competition. And therefore the status quo doesn’t change. I think we should swap the burden of proof: patents should be abolished if it cannot be shown that they’re a net positive for consumers. We shouldn’t be supporting a practice whose effect is unknown and possibly detrimental to consumers.
runeks 3y ago
> Especially since, if there hadn't been patents, they would have just had everything as trade secrets. Reverse engineering the x86 instruction set would be rather trivial for even a small company. Releasing a x86 product, however, is not possible because of patents and Intel lawyers.
panick21_ 3y ago
Look at companies like Cyrix for example. They made some good 86x processors in the 90s but were also constantly involved in legal battles. AMD was literally in an ongoing legal battle for 20 years straight. In the 90s you had other companies that could have built x86 chips, if they would have been allowed two. Digital Alpha was the bases for the AMD chips that kicked Intel so hard that they resorted paying their supplier to not adopt it. Digital could have done a x86 but they would have been in a lawsuit with intel. Intel also didn't really have an advantage on the node for most of that period.