Re: [oc] License issue about instset compatibility

[Marko Mlinar <markom@opencores.org>]

John,

> The aim of the patent system is to encourage innovation (despite
> appearances to the contrary).  The idea is an inventor publishes
> an invention (in exchange for a limited monopoly) so other inventors
> can immediately start improving on the original invention (and take
> out their own patents, if they want).  By improving and extending the
> original you are doing exactly what the patents system is supposed to
> encourage (and you can hardly be prosecuted for that?)
Although I think you distict between trademarks with patents, I would like to 
point out that this is true only for patents.

> 4) There is also the wide open question of whether HDL is even covered
> by a patent.  HDL stands for "Hardware DESCRIPTION Language".  That is,
> a HDL source file is simply a description of an object.  It is NOT
> the object itself.  Similarly a patent is a DESCRIPTION of the object
> being patented.  It is not illegal to distribute a copy of a patent, so
> why should it be illegal to distribute a copy of a HDL file?  Both are
> just descriptions.  If a patent violation takes place, I would argue that
> it occurs when a bitstream is uploaded to an FPGA, thereby creating
> a REAL WORLD OBJECT, which is covered by a patent.
>
> There is a famous painting which illustrates my point.  "Ceci n'est pas une
> pipe" painted by Rene Magritte in 1926.  It may be viewed here:
>
> http://bothner.udo.free.fr/pub/Xpics/magritte-la_trahison.jpg
>
> The caption translates as "This is not a pipe".  The painter is making the
> point that it is not a pipe, it is a PICTURE of a pipe.  (Eg. you can't
> smoke it, pick it up, feel it's shape, or do any other actions associated
> with pipes.)  In a similar way HDL is a picture of an object, not the
> object itself.
You are completely right. AFAIK all laws around the world do not allow for a 
description or algorithm to be patented. In practice this is almost true for 
Europe, but no at all true for US, where patent office do whatever lawyers 
tell/pay them ;)
This is done not by patenting description or algorithm, but machine, so 
usually such patents start with:
"A method and apparatus ..."
or
"A machine comprising..."

When they sue somebody they claim, that they implemented their design, which 
is of course true. E.g. if you run RTL simulation of the design you have an 
implementation (of course, unusable in practice), but still a machine; or if 
you run a program they can claim you implemented their machine.
Since judges do not have a clue about it all it is all a matter of money 
spent...

But they will only sue you if they get any benefits -- money/more market. So 
its highly unlikely they will come after individuals especially if they are 
abroad.

best regards,
Marko

--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml