Re: R6502AP

From: Nate Lawson <nate_at_root.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 16:00:52 -0800
Message-Id: <5829DC9C-B999-40F4-A944-4ABF41F09CCD@root.org>
On Dec 4, 2014, at 3:00 PM, smf <smf@null.net> wrote:

> 
> On 02/12/2014 20:04, Nate Lawson wrote:
>> I was thinking the patent dispute was more about the NMOS process in general. Did Motorola have general silicon production patents that they could have used against MOS?
> 
> AFAICT it was purely 6800 bus protocol patents. I'm not convinced the 6800 bus protocol is different enough to be patentable but the patent office thinks there is and sometimes you have to settle.
> 
> However they ended up cross licensing patents, so they were both violating something (though they might not have known at the time). I was under the impression that production processes were secret and magical (think breaking bad but for silicon instead of crystal meth) and were therefore never patented.

Itís still unclear which of the below were the main claims. Without the court filings, we wonít know. Anyone have Lexis-Nexis access?

>  These patents covered the 6800 bus and how the peripheral chips interfaced with the microprocessor.[41] 
...
> Motorola began making transistors in 1950 and had a portfolio of semiconductor patents. 

Cross-licensing was and is extremely common. It doesnít mean that MOS had anything valuable at the time, but it does prevent future lawsuits if you were to develop something new. I think of it more as a way of guaranteeing stability to your investors than any admission of whose portfolio was larger or more important.

-Nate
       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Received on 2014-12-05 00:01:48

Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.