From: muta...@gmail.com   
      
   On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 1:43:03 PM UTC+8, wolfgang kern wrote:   
   > On 04/04/2023 04:20, muta...@gmail.com wrote:    
   > > On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 9:18:59 AM UTC+8, Dan Cross wrote:    
   > >    
   > >>> Again - copyright covers a work of art. Not an    
   > >>> architectural concept. Patents could cover the later.    
   > >>> But 20 years have passed.    
   > >    
   > >> You should probably take a law course focusing on intellectual    
   > >> property before assuming that.    
   > >    
   > > I'm not "assuming" anything. It's my understanding.   
      
   > you think that CPU-instructions can't be patented ?   
      
   Read what is written above.   
      
   I said they can't be copyrighted, not that they can't be patented.   
      
   I said it multiple times too.   
      
   And I even specified the time that the patents expire in.   
      
   And I even said that that time had passed already.   
      
   > They are part of real hardware and not just an architectural concept.    
      
   Yes, and people don't write "copyright MIPS" on real hardware.   
   Or real cars. They're not works of art.   
      
   > while old stuff runs out of patent with time, there are many new x86-64    
   > opcodes like AVX/SIMD and friends that could be still protected.    
      
   And I didn't make any claim about those.   
      
   I made a claim that:   
      
   1. Plasma deliberately avoided using known patented instructions   
   at the time it was written.   
      
   2. Even if they stuffed up, 20 years have passed.   
      
   So it cannot be subjected to either patent or copyright,   
   and is public domain.   
      
   Unless someone wants to show me very strong evidence   
   to the contrary.   
      
   So far no-one has. Just suggestions on wasting my money on   
   lawyers instead of theirs.   
      
   BFN. Paul.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)