^except for things like patents and copyrights that would limit the production to only companies IBM and toshiba license the rights to.

yeah, but it doesnt work quite like that does it?

 

if it did then their would only be one company producing cars and only one producing clocks etc.

 

so they can't copy it exactly, but they can develop it.

If they can, they'll reverse engineer it and develop their own version from there.

 

You can't patent "doing something", only how it's done.

reverse engineer

 

that's the words i was looking for!

 

the fact that the chip starts off OS-neutral will be beneficial for all companies... except maybe the original producers; IBM, sony & toshiba.

The IT and IP world is much more strict than everything else; we've seen far to many examples of this already.

yeah but if you are telling me that intel will not be allowed to develop the Cell, i mean, maybe they cant say "new improved Cell" but they can reverse engineer it and make it better, they can change it, but the idea of a 9 core ICC with specifically tuned 234million transistors will be the basis of the new chip.

Not if IBM sues them for illegally reverse engineering their product and stealing their ideas.

Who made the first ever computer.... are they sueing people Dell for making computers? who made the first ever OS? are they suing Microsoft or Linux? Who made the first web-browser? are they suing IE or FF?

 

i think you know where im heading!

Not if IBM sues them for illegally reverse engineering their product and stealing their ideas.

I don't think reverse engineering is actually a crime.

It usually violates the end user license agreement.

If I'm going to reverse engineer a chip, I'm not going to be accepting that agreement.

The only way to not accept the agreement would be to not purchase it.

sounds pritty awesome how big is it?

by "it" i mean the Cell because one of those things would be perfict to have in my invisibility suit design

you're forgetting all the perifferal parts to the chip, fake. You need a FSB, Memory, Lots of IO ports, BIOS, and the list goes on. That would be like strapping a computer case on to your invisibility suit.

Might as well go for an invisibility vehicle first.

The only way to not accept the agreement would be to not purchase it.

I think if we're going to assume that I'm willing to reverse-engineer someone else's technology and see what they did in order to produce a competing product, we can also safely assume I have the means to legally acquire that technology without purchasing it, which doesn't require that I have any such agreement with the vendor.

It will be interesting to see what the chip makers come out with next.

Currently, I'm running a 3.8 GHz processor with 1 GB 400 MHz SDRAM.

I gave my older P3, 933 MHz processor with 768 MB 133 MHz SDRAM to

my brother. To him it was like a bolt of lightning considering that he

had a 120 MHz processor with 64 MB EDO RAM previously. Of course,

he and his children have already got it infected with viruses !

^You're using SDRAM? wow.

you're using a 3.8GHz processor? that's the fastest available!

 

SDRAM is not that uncommon.

I say "wow" because it is older than DDR and nothing new uses it anymore.

 

So it's kind of strange that he's using a new, blazing fast processor with memory that can't even keep up with it.

jsyk silencer: i joined this forum just to tell you to learn what youre saying before you make fun of someone. (i probly would have later but thats not the point.) ddr is a type of sdram. ddr just means double data rate and sdram is just synchronous dynamic random access memory. i dont know why i even took the time to tell you this but im in that kind of mood.

You still can't use DDR ram in an SD slot and vice versa.

 

DDR is newer and faster, so most new motherboards support it (some have an sd lot too).

 

I wasn't making fun of him, either. I was just surprised that he got a mobo for such a fast processor but with slower ram.

 

Now go away and don't bother coming back.