Searching \ for '[OT] Are they going to patent the NOP next?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page:
Search entire site for: 'Are they going to patent the NOP next?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Are they going to patent the NOP next?'
2007\05\14@205613 by Jim Korman

Posted on a borland.delphi.non-technical list

Just what is novel, unique, or hasn't been around since rocks here?


2007\05\14@210653 by Jinx

face picon face
It's a load of "void function"

2007\05\15@025200 by Peter P.

picon face
Jim Korman <jkorman <at>> writes:
> Just what is novel, unique, or hasn't been around since rocks here?

Why are you asking that when the cited patents in that patent include this
(1994) implementation of branch-on-fault:

The larger part of the 'IP' these patents represent is probably undefendable.
Branch on fault (code or data) probably dates back to the first timesharing
hardware. PDPs with their microprogrammed CPUs certainly supported this. How
exactly IBM could patent what is described above in 1994 beats me but I am not a
lawyer. Apparently this petent thing is a device that allows lawyers to put
their kids through college and serves as 'teeth' for companies which try to
subdue a competitor until they find something that works better.

Peter P.

2007\05\15@092120 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Software patent is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. When you
make a hardware patent you have to exactly describe what are you doing, what
are the principles. With software you just claim that something is yours
that is a bit similar than your findings or do the same results as yours.
That's how they could patented signature based virus scanning and loads of
other obvious things - but nobody could claim the fee for it yet.

FAT file system, jpeg and mp3 for example also patented or at least wanted
to be patented, but the matter of fact all of these claimed after it was
proven to be used widely. I would say if a method is already used by others
than the issuer the claim is invalid... Also if somebody make a software
patent at least a pseudo-coded source has to be publicised for that, so that
the original goal of the whole thing would've been achieved so others could
learn the new technology and can improve it even further.

I think I will patent blinking LED projects that are using at least one PIC
controllers with one or more 5mm LED so from now you can only make your
project using 3mm LED or other sized ones <grin>


On 5/15/07, Peter P. <> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2007\05\15@093800 by Walter Banks

picon face
I wonder if the patent office can be sued for the costs of defending prior art ?
There were widely available tools in the 80's that had all of the claims as part of the
implementation. SWI was implemented on 8 bit processors in the 70's for the purpose of breaks and debugging.

Anyone needs prior art on this one Byte Crafts historical products department should be able to help.


Jim Korman wrote:

> Posted on a borland.delphi.non-technical list
> Just what is novel, unique, or hasn't been around since rocks here?
> Jim
> -

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2007 , 2008 only
- Today
- New search...