Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

www2.eecs.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#91

Post by kmeisthax »

fidotron wrote: post #18
crote wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So rather than getting stuck in potential future tarpit of AWS or GCS or Azure, or probably a dozen other companies, we should voluntarily put ourselves into the IP tarpit developed by ARM? How exactly is that a win? Over the last two decades ARM has developed a stranglehold on the non-x86 world, and they have already considered abusing this position to increase their profit margin[0]. As a chipmaker you're essential…

Arm didn't develop the IP tarpit, they're one of the few players that learned how to operate in it. The SuperH example is relevant because what Arm did was "that's neat, let's license it" for some of the Hitachi innovations, and then licensed it to other people too. This is a positive development, and how trade and innovation has worked through the most successful periods in history. There is a respect in which they…

MPEG-LA is a very bad example. For starters, it's not MPEG; and furthermore there isn't a single MPEG patent pool anymore. There's like three of them, plus patent holders that haven't actually joined a pool, and that's made H.265 licensing a living nightmare.

Don't take my innovating-hating Stallmanite commie ass's word for it. Leonardo Chiariglione himself - a man who is adamantly opposed to royalty free formats being the superior standard[0] - has pointed out significant problems with the ISO MPEG licensing model of "we use whatever's best and let the patent pools sort it out". See: https://blog.chiariglione.org/a-crisis-the-causes-and-a-solu...

Since he posted that article, ISO cut MPEG into a bunch of tiny pieces and Leonardo was pushed out of the organization he founded, presumably as retaliation for airing the dirty laundry. He now runs a competing organization (MPAI) with very specific licensing requirements specifically to ensure patent pools don't go nuts screwing over users of patents.

[0] To be clear, he doesn't hate royalty free, he just wants it to be deliberately inferior so that research labs can make money off the patent royalties to fund more research.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#92

Post by snvzz »

klelatti wrote: post #87
snvzz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, not a source. There's some claims in this article and in the routers article they use as source, but they're unrelated.

err... > ... we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing our longstanding relationship of collaboration with Apple and Apple’s access to the Arm architecture. Arm's IPO F-1/A. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1973239/000119312523... Which was linked in the MacRumors link.

Yes, I had seen that.

>agreement

and

>access to the Arm architecture.

Is vague language that could mean about anything.

E.g. it could mean RAND ("reasonable" and "non-discriminatory").

Namely, the parent specifically claimed:

>Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040

The vague language is insufficient to support the claim.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#93

Post by klelatti »

snvzz wrote: post #92
klelatti wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

err... > ... we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing our longstanding relationship of collaboration with Apple and Apple’s access to the Arm architecture. Arm's IPO F-1/A. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1973239/000119312523... Which was linked in the MacRumors link.

Yes, I had seen that. >agreement and >access to the Arm architecture. Is vague language that could mean about anything. E.g. it could mean RAND ("reasonable" and "non-discriminatory"). Namely, the parent specifically claimed: >Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040 The vague language is insufficient to support the claim.

No.

> we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing … Apple’s access to the Arm architecture.

Clearly says that the agreement continues Apple’s access to the Arm architecture beyond 2040. That’s what a licensing deal is.

This is an important disclosure. Any attempt to pass something less than a licensing deal with this wording wouldn’t get pass the lawyers.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#94

Post by snvzz »

klelatti wrote: post #93
snvzz wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I had seen that. >agreement and >access to the Arm architecture. Is vague language that could mean about anything. E.g. it could mean RAND ("reasonable" and "non-discriminatory"). Namely, the parent specifically claimed: >Apple has a licensing deal with ARM through 2040 The vague language is insufficient to support the claim.

No. > we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing … Apple’s access to the Arm architecture. Clearly says that the agreement continues Apple’s access to the Arm architecture beyond 2040. That’s what a licensing deal is. This is an important disclosure. Any attempt to pass something less than a licensing deal with this wording wouldn’t get pass the lawyers.

IANAL. With that out of the way,

That's not even a contract but a public statement. A lawyer would wipe her ass with it.

We do not get to see the actual agreement, and this "access" could very well mean the RAND I mentioned, i.e. that they won't be arbitrarily denied a license.

Incidentally, the key word "license" is remarkably not included in the language used.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#96

Post by 1000100_1000101 »

wtetzner wrote: post #88
1000100_1000101 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple was a co-founder of Arm [0]. "Arm was officially founded as a company in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd, which was a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple Computer (now Apple Inc.), and VLSI Technology (now NXP Semiconductors N.V)." I'm not sure of their exact licensing terms, but I'm sure as a co-founder they're favourable. [0] - https://newsroom.arm.com/blog/arm-official-history

I seem to have replied to the wrong comment. I meant to reply to the one about Intel threatening Microsoft about emulating x86 on ARM.

Ah. In that case, I'm not sure what the difference is. Both Rosetta 2, and WoW are translating blocks of code to native, not doing a CPU emulation...

I'm wondering if Apple actually has some sort of license to do the translation. Rosetta 2 isn't installed by default. On the PS3, Sony had a pile of media codecs available, and you had to enable each one manually to generate a license key... which I'm sure was to avoid paying for codecs that people aren't using. Rosetta requiring an installation could just be space saving, or could be a sign they're paying a license per install, and avoiding the cost when it's not needed.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#97

Post by brucehoult »

klelatti wrote: post #77
mort96 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why that guy didn't just link to a source, but I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arm_Holdings#Founding The company was founded in November 1990 as Advanced RISC Machines Ltd and structured as a joint venture between Acorn Computers, Apple, and VLSI Technology. Which links a blog post and an LA Times news article as a source: https://community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architecture... , https…

Yes, Apple is an Arm founder. The comment implies, though, that they get a special deal because they are a founder. Neither Wikipedia nor the linked articles say that. There won't be a source because the details of the current commercial contract between Apple and Arm will be highly confidential. In any event, it's vanishingly unlikely that Apple gets some special unique rights to IP created in the 2000s as a result…

Also this deal until 2040 (signed nine months ago) is crazy. I can't imagine why Apple would sign such a thing unless they got really phenomenal terms.

And why would Arm give such amazing terms?

Not because Apple was an Arm founder 35 years ago.

It's probably because Apple showed Arm a prototype of a Mac or iPhone running on "Apple Silicon gen 2" aka RISC-V.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#98

Post by brucehoult »

brcmthrowaway wrote: post #95

Whatever happened to RISCV, wasnt it the big new thing like AI and web3?

RISC-V currently has an installed base of around 15 billion CPUs, increasing at a current rate of maybe 4 billion a year.

The first half a dozen relatively low performance [1] brands and models of laptops and tablets have come out in the last year, as has a workstation with 64 OoO cores running at 2.0 GHz, 64 MB L3 cache, 128 GB RAM.

By the end of the year RISC-V SoCs will be shipping with 2x the IPC they had at the start of the year, and also significantly higher clock speed. 8 or 16 cores will be the norm, vs 4 at the start of the year.

You're going to see RISC-V smart phones by around 2026 or 2027.

[1] something like late Pentium III per core, but quad core.

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#99

Post by [deleted] »

brucehoult wrote: post #97
klelatti wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Apple is an Arm founder. The comment implies, though, that they get a special deal because they are a founder. Neither Wikipedia nor the linked articles say that. There won't be a source because the details of the current commercial contract between Apple and Arm will be highly confidential. In any event, it's vanishingly unlikely that Apple gets some special unique rights to IP created in the 2000s as a result…

Also this deal until 2040 (signed nine months ago) is crazy. I can't imagine why Apple would sign such a thing unless they got really phenomenal terms. And why would Arm give such amazing terms? Not because Apple was an Arm founder 35 years ago. It's probably because Apple showed Arm a prototype of a Mac or iPhone running on "Apple Silicon gen 2" aka RISC-V.

[deleted]

Re: Instruction Sets Should Be Free: The Case for RISC-V [pdf] (2014)

#100

Post by [deleted] »

snvzz wrote: post #94
klelatti wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. > we have entered into a new long-term agreement with Apple that extends beyond 2040, continuing … Apple’s access to the Arm architecture. Clearly says that the agreement continues Apple’s access to the Arm architecture beyond 2040. That’s what a licensing deal is. This is an important disclosure. Any attempt to pass something less than a licensing deal with this wording wouldn’t get pass the lawyers.

IANAL. With that out of the way, That's not even a contract but a public statement. A lawyer would wipe her ass with it. We do not get to see the actual agreement, and this "access" could very well mean the RAND I mentioned, i.e. that they won't be arbitrarily denied a license. Incidentally, the key word "license" is remarkably not included in the language used.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN