Why do ISAs have to be licensed?

[Beafy]

I've been reading an article regarding a cross-license deal between Intel and AMD regarding stuff like 64bit, SSE2 and SSE3.

So, why do Intel or AMD need a license to implement a couple of opcodes? As long as they don't use a trademark (which Intel in the case of their 64-bit extension doesn't, since they use their own trademake "EM64" or whatever it's called), or a specific implementation that is patented, shouldn't everyone be allowed to implement a standard freely?

What's the legal background of this?

 

[pcchen]

I am not an expert, but for what I've heard, ISA itself is not patentable. However, ideas behind an ISA can be patented. When you want to implement the ISA, you have to use that idea, therefore, you have to license it.

 

[The_Wolf_Who_Cried_Boy]

Companies having invested tens of man years and hundreds of millions to billions of dollars developing an architecture obviously want to protect their intellectual property. Otherwise, why bother, a start up company could simply copy your design, have TSMC fab it, and sell them for a dollar profit each with no need to amortize capital or R&D expenses.

 

[Saem]

Shogun, you're confusing architecture with design.

 

[IgnorancePersonified]

well I think their allowed to be licensed by the companies because the companies, like Intel, would be considered a monopoly if they didn't license it.

 

[Simon F]

Shogun, you're confusing architecture with design.

A good design can take a long time and a lot of money as well.

 

[Saem]

A good design can take a long time and a lot of money as well.

Huh? AFAIK..

Architecture (x86, SSE, SSE2...) and design (Willemete, Northwood, ...). The architecture would be the cheapest of the bunch by a large margin. I don't think I ever insinuated otherwise.

Copying the former would give you compatability, but the big chunk of change is involved in actually implementing it, and doing so well.