Re: Universal Processor (was Re: [oc] x86 IP Core)

[John Dalton <john.dalton@bigfoot.com>]

I'm arguing that such a compiler is okay because it *doesn't*
use patented methods and its primary use is unrelated to any
patented processors.  Depending on the nature of the patents,
it might still be an infringement for an individual user to
build a processor based on output from the compiler.  That
however is a peripheral issue for the individual user to deal
with.


To answer Rudi, as far as I know, the requirement for prior
is to simply publish an idea, not to build and sell it.
For example, a journal article qualifies as prior art.
The journal can be obscure as you want.  I'm not sure about messages
on mailing lists.  Do courts only recognise a certain forms
of publication as valid?  Does an email list count as public
distribution?  How does one prove the contents of a mailing
list, will archives do?

All these are question to which I do not know the answer.
My guess is the only way to get an answer is to pay a
lawyer for written legal advice.  I'm not in a position
to do this.  Does anyone out there have access to a lawyer
who could write such an opinion?  If so, perhaps we could
get such opinions (with permission to reproduce them), scan
them, and put them in a safe place on the opencores web site?

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