Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
As time & budget permits, include open source compatibility as a requirement when new hardware blocks are being designed, making it easier to expose programming information in the future.
Originally Posted by entropy
How is that coming along?
The first time I read this was more than 4 years ago.
Objectively speaking it sounds like damage reduction to me.
2. Release all the information immediately and hope that if/when problems arise we have enough cash to fight or work around them, along with enough other products to keep us going if our GPU sales get impacted. Privately owned companies can do that but publicly-traded companies can't unless they have demonstrably high confidence in their ability to deal with whatever happens.
3. Prioritize the IP and work through each block separately, releasing as much information as appears "safe" (admittedly a difficult determination). For problematic information, look for ways to use the blocks without exposing that information. As time & budget permits, include open source compatibility as a
So reading between the lines, would it be fair to say that in the current IP/patent climate, every block has to be reviewed to see if there is an IP liability in releasing information about it? Is the problem that there are so many trivial patents that it is difficult to create something new without infringing, either unknowingly or otherwise?
If this is the case, it seems to suggest that all of us should be focusing on patent reform. The patent system was intended to encourage both innovation and the publication of that innovation. This situation sounds seriously dysfunctional. What can we do about it?
For reference, the USPTO's budget is based on the number of patents/trademarks granted. Their attitude is, when in doubt, issue the patent and then let the courts sort it out. Not exactly the innovation resource our founders had in mind...