New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking
-
@HardwareGeek said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
not that you must show that you have built the thing you patent,
With some exceptions. The one I remember off-hand is that any patent application for a perpetual motion machine must be accompanied by a working implementation. I believe there are similar requirements for a few other commonly invented crackpot devices that defy science, but I don't remember the specifics.
I have heard more than once that the PTO flat-out stated that they would not issue any more patents for perpetual machines.
-
@Gąska said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
All I'm proposing is punishing public servants for their fuckups, defined as not following the procedures and due diligence, resulting in bad patents being approved or good patents being rejected.
Well as long as a little due diligence will do it! In reality it's a recipe for nothing ever being approved since everyone will be terrified to do so. Also you'll drive out any sensible inspectors.
-
@tharpa said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@HardwareGeek said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
not that you must show that you have built the thing you patent,
With some exceptions. The one I remember off-hand is that any patent application for a perpetual motion machine must be accompanied by a working implementation. I believe there are similar requirements for a few other commonly invented crackpot devices that defy science, but I don't remember the specifics.
I have heard more than once that the PTO flat-out stated that they would not issue any more patents for supposed perpetual machines.
-
If fining people or sending them to jail for terrible decisions was a viable option, the patent clerks wouldn't be my first targets. There are much bigger fishes.
Target #1 - politicians. (Will never happen, for obvious reasons).
Target #2 - managers. I bet that if an Equifax-like fuckup meant potential jail time, security practices would be much better. And IT would make a huge step towards the rigor of other engineering disciplines, instead of being the circus it currently is.
-
@Gąska said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
you totally can sue for patent infringement retroactively
Though there are limited circumstances in which prior use may provide a defense against an infringement claim or, under even more limited circumstances, invalidate the patent.
-
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
patenting any semblance of idea
Patents are granted for ideas that are "reduced to practice" — that is, you don't necessarily have to actually build your widget, but you must at least provide sufficiently detailed information that someone "versed in the art" could build a widget from your idea. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Whether the patent examiners actually examine any given application in sufficient detail to determine that is another question.
-
@HardwareGeek: I thought proving the existence of public prior art was (in theory) sufficient to invalidate a patent?
-
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
I wonder if patents have not simply outlived their usefulness.
My inclination would be to say, no, they're still useful. However, I do think some reform is in order, and the term is something I think should be examined. The objective of patents, of course, is to protect an invention long enough for the inventor to (attempt to) profit from it and make the invention public so that other inventors can improve on it. However, these days technology advances at such a rapid pace that the invention is obsolete long before the patent expires and the invention becomes available for improvement.
-
@Zerosquare said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@HardwareGeek: I thought proving the existence of public prior art was (in theory) sufficient to invalidate a patent?
Yes, with emphasis on the, um, emphasized words. You have to prove it by "clear and convincing" evidence. It has to be public use — i.e., patented or otherwise published — not used as a trade secret. And "prior" means "by at least a year."
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@ben_lubar said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@M_Adams said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@SlackerD said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@masonwheeler said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@Tsaukpaetra said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
Text @SlackerD quoted said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
for example “uuencode.”
Is that still a thing???
It has now been largely replaced by MIME and yEnc. With MIME, files that might have been uuencoded are instead transferred with base64 encoding.
TWFuIGlzIGRpc3Rpbmd1aXNoZWQsIG5vdCBvbmx5IGJ5IGhpcyByZWFzb24sIGJ1dCBieSB0aGlz
IHNpbmd1bGFyIHBhc3Npb24gZnJvbSBvdGhlciBhbmltYWxzLCB3aGljaCBpcyBhIGx1c3Qgb2Yg
dGhlIG1pbmQsIHRoYXQgYnkgYSBwZXJzZXZlcmFuY2Ugb2YgZGVsaWdodCBpbiB0aGUgY29udGlu
dWVkIGFuZCBpbmRlZmF0aWdhYmxlIGdlbmVyYXRpb24gb2Yga25vd2xlZGdlLCBleGNlZWRzIHRo
ZSBzaG9ydCB2ZWhlbWVuY2Ugb2YgYW55IGNhcm5hbCBwbGVhc3VyZS4=RGVlemUgTnV0cw==
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- xA0DAAoBkpOWd6tZ7aQBy+F0AOIAAAAA42ltIHRoZSBo4mVsbGThdWTgZQDCwVwE AAEKABAFAlt/dewJEJKTlnerWe2kAAA9ixAAkHL6YbpR5kJf72e5La8JlPPoezBb /zBhxEcFid+2VVahdQn4oa1pRQUwwBItJLiU5m19vngcEUCcevInIR38zBFQqxKT R+zrB0BCn6W15tVFV5nRp+hT+KUOoY1e/eE5oEOqYBvFFfEd30fWQjssUb4G0fLE gvRB3nO2YruP/dWy/lKrNdsC67wME5n9J2SitPPBfy5dlulNUzzc0qLneoCHsvt8 jtq2XxgNJvmHz6o7+wjXqm9U7b4aQI3h6CAHXDdvhCHLDFOkddP8T0hzXC8F6QMC d1oMTOeFAx7lNQ7+URGeFEXDWTglrlnWtA6ly78v1Ri1kcHjkj4yisTSXi15YBKX Hm9EZsXqKm4VZc5BXVGa5hE0USXO4qq07USGoAweThEi15H9G1geA0k5kIoJPUWr ugfw9rFOzs4kgUy27Cg+wq968DVbbAKzpmG+PJbXxZCRI9pDP+oJwIwqmHSszn7Y 1qIe0qBEZstUFM/G3YMMlGcq0N9fEsU9nfUXl3uyeeXrvwJNeN04HLSY9tugv/Jy IMAw7Iez2V5ck3wffDSpQwnwBPSvS7PaelYfFDXJncExjqaTb5t6Mx6Yq29DkEMr Gu3rVUZ9F/oejEgRhhGXECEKLCy8Edn5pMndK/AHT/JXH2KM7WLIN1DCRrrdRivk Ad/7uAlwLq9XuJk= =0S0A -----END PGP MESSAGE-----Who is this "helldude" you speak of?
https://twitter.com/muhmentions
im the hell dude (@helldude@mastodon.social)
1.58K Posts, 2K Following, 4.28K Followers · im the helldude
-
@HardwareGeek said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
patenting any semblance of idea
Patents are granted for ideas that are "reduced to practice" — that is, you don't necessarily have to actually build your widget, but you must at least provide sufficiently detailed information that someone "versed in the art" could build a widget from your idea. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Whether the patent examiners actually examine any given application in sufficient detail to determine that is another question.
So if I found a sufficiently detailed explanation of the magic used to raise the sun each day, in theory I could get a patent for it? Hmmm....
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Tsaukpaetra: Forget it. Everything Sun-related was acquired by Oracle. And they probably already patented everything.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
So if I found a sufficiently detailed explanation of the magic used to raise the sun each day, in theory I could get a patent for it? Hmmm....
If the belief in the Hogfather is not restored before the end of the night, the sun will not go up.
-
@PleegWat Too late, it's already a mere miasma of incandescent plasma.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@HardwareGeek said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
patenting any semblance of idea
Patents are granted for ideas that are "reduced to practice" — that is, you don't necessarily have to actually build your widget, but you must at least provide sufficiently detailed information that someone "versed in the art" could build a widget from your idea. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Whether the patent examiners actually examine any given application in sufficient detail to determine that is another question.
So if I found a sufficiently detailed explanation of the magic used to raise the sun each day, in theory I could get a patent for it? Hmmm....
I'm pretty sure this would be precluded by prior public use. The explanation might not have been public, but the use certainly has been.
-
@Zerosquare said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
Target #2 - managers. I bet that if an Equifax-like fuckup meant potential jail time, security practices would be much better. And IT would make a huge step towards the rigor of other engineering disciplines, instead of being the circus it currently is.
"Currently" has a long and proud history of screwed-uppedness.
I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law.
-- C. A. R. Hoare, 1980 Turing Award lecture
-
@masonwheeler said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@Zerosquare said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
Target #2 - managers. I bet that if an Equifax-like fuckup meant potential jail time, security practices would be much better. And IT would make a huge step towards the rigor of other engineering disciplines, instead of being the circus it currently is.
"Currently" has a long and proud history of screwed-uppedness.
I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law.
-- C. A. R. Hoare, 1980 Turing Award lecture
Quick question: How many languages have first-party support for "tell me all the places my program could crash with a runtime error (division by zero, null pointer dereference, accessing a value outside of the bounds of an array, ...)"? Last time I checked, it was zero, but I'm hoping the number has changed since then.
-
@ben_lubar Rust almost became this. With an emphasis on "almost".
-
@masonwheeler said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@Zerosquare said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
Target #2 - managers. I bet that if an Equifax-like fuckup meant potential jail time, security practices would be much better. And IT would make a huge step towards the rigor of other engineering disciplines, instead of being the circus it currently is.
"Currently" has a long and proud history of screwed-uppedness.
I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law.
-- C. A. R. Hoare, 1980 Turing Award lecture
Rust is a great example of how to correctly do this.
Edit:
-
Some of this has been answered over the week-end (yeah, I only read TDWTF at work... I'm not masochistic enough to do it when I've got more interesting things to do!), but still, I'm going to add a few points.
@Gąska said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
That's where we disagree. An administration that sees itself starved of resources because of fines would have an extremely strong incentive to do something about it.
For example, account for fines in their budgeting decisions. The money is going to end up in bucket B, so let's decrease bucket B and increase bucket A.
But then, as I said, this means they are asking for the government for a funding increase ("we got X last year but spent Y on fines, so pretty please can we get X+Y this year?"). I agree with you that bad PR is rarely enough to significantly move a government, but my experience, as least in Western Europe, is that governmental agencies that operate somewhat independently of the government (like a patent office) are suffering from huge budget cuts, not increases. They are already very hard pressed to do their current job with whatever resources the government grants them, and I very, very strongly doubt that is they were to ask for an increase to cover fines that they expect to have to pay, they would be told to fuck off.
If you think PR is going to keep the government from screwing up, we must be living on different planets.
No, but I think that a government agency asking for a funding increase to cover its actual fuck up is not going to get it. I mean, put yourself in the shoes of the politician in the finance ministry. You know that you're going to be roasted by the opposition (and your side as well, probably, since you're cutting some stuff that is popular in order to give the impression that you are working to reduce the deficit -- this applies almost everywhere nowadays and I don't see it changing in the near future) when you present your next budget. Are you really going to increase the funding you give to the patent office now, with a small footnote saying that you expect them to give you back that money as fines later in the year? That's opening a huge avenue for criticism, saying you're wasting money, you're subsidizing inefficiency etc.
In my opinion, this would not happen. Never. So the patent office is screwed, their budget is not going to increase.
Yes, there are some additional fixed costs. But I'll point out that your idea of fining the civil servants themselves adds even more such costs, because it adds all the fixed costs of my solution, plus on top of that the cost of handling many individual parties (all civil servants) contesting fines etc.
That would mostly be covered out of applicant's pocket (they have money for patent, they should have money for court proceedings - and if they're right, the court proceedings costs would be reimbursed).
I'm also alluding to that somewhere below, I think here making people pay for the full judicial cost if they lost is illegal (probably even unconstitutional), on the grounds that it prevents fair access to the justice. The only exception being if you are abusing the justice system with frivolous claims (i.e. suing when you know you don't have grounds to, but then someone has to prove that you really actually knew, not just that you should have known).
Basically, if you know that you're going to be financially ruined if you lose, you are only going to sue when you believe that you are pretty sure to win, or when the benefit of winning is much larger than the cost of losing and you have deep enough pockets to cover the cost of losing if you ever do. In other words, if you have to pay when losing, you would not sue when the prejudice that you are suffering is smaller than the cost of the trial (mathematically speaking, when your expected gain is strictly positive), or if you are poor enough that the perspective of loosing would scare you away. And this is how big companies with large pockets can screw little people, who would never have the financial resources to sue them if they lost. It's already partly the case (with lawyers etc.), adding the cost of judges and other public officers in there would make things even worse (from a moral point of view).
So what you are proposing is impossible (at least here), and I think this is a very good thing.
And therefore, fining individuals would add more costs than fining the institution.
I'm not saying it's the only way to have a salary system, I'm just saying that this is how the vast majority of jobs work. Your idea requires breaking something that is a fundamental understanding of how employment work.
What other punishment can you think of?
I can't, that's the point. Your proposal goes against the way most employment work, and indeed I cannot come up with another way to make it work. That just goes to show how unrealistic your idea is.
Except currently the court only evaluates granted patents. Now your system means it may have to look at all patents applications.
Wait, is it not possible already? Right now, if they reject your application for bullshit reason, that's it?
I'm guessing there must be an appeal process already (I'm not familiar enough to know). But the difference is that since it's currently only an administrative process, that appeal can be handled by some lower specialized arbitration process, not a judge. If you start handing down fines to individuals through this process, then you need a way to escalate that process up to a true judge (at least that's how the judicial system works here -- in theory, at least). So while at the moment judges never get to see patent applications, with your system they would see some. So more work for them.
That is adding a huge cost to the system (even if paid by the plaintiff, which might also not be legal in some places unless you can prove the law suit was done in bad faith
Wut? Seriously that's illegal? What the fuck is wrong with your judical system!?
See above, equal and fair access to justice. I would say what's wrong with your system if it allows that.
there is still the matter of having all the judges etc. that go along, so a huge additional complexity).
That point I don't understand. Get along with what?
More cases to try means more judges means more tribunals, more admin staff both in the courts and in the judicial administration to handle all these additional people (HR, finance, IT...), more buildings, more appeal courts above, more everything. Basically, you are ballooning the judicial institution.
And also it's dependent on whether people are actually suing (so they pay), so now all these people have a direct interest in how many trials happen. There is no way they are not going to abuse that.
Okay, fair enough. So tell me, what would starve, how exactly would it starve, and what would happen when it starves?
I don't really know. TBH, I went along with the idea to fine the office itself more as riff on your idea to fine employees (which, for all the reasons above, I find highly unrealistic) than as a real solution. I don't think it's really a good solution to the problem (not that I have one to offer).
My guess would be that it would put the office in a situation where it cannot operate at all. At the very least, this would create a crisis that would force government to intervene. How, I don't know. Most likely by removing the fines, which would be a return to the current status-quo, but then we're already working on the assumption that there is enough political will to impose these fines in the first place, so it's a bit self-contradictory to say they would be removed (although the situation wouldn't be the same any more, of course). So yeah, I have no idea.
-
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
my experience, as least in Western Europe, is that governmental agencies that operate somewhat independently of the government (like a patent office) are suffering from huge budget cuts, not increases.
My experience is that governmental agencies independent of the government don't exist. Every high rank employee is a political seat, and they allget swapped when the party in power changes. But that might be specific to Eastern Europe.
Are you really going to increase the funding you give to the patent office now, with a small footnote saying that you expect them to give you back that money as fines later in the year?
It's worse than that - ideally, fines should never happen. They'd be there to make sure the office operates correctly, not to pump budget. I know, it's a very eccentrinc idea, and has zero chance of getting political support.
Basically, if you know that you're going to be financially ruined if you lose, you are only going to sue when you believe that you are pretty sure to win, or when the benefit of winning is much larger than the cost of losing and you have deep enough pockets to cover the cost of losing if you ever do.
And this is why we can't have nice things: courts being absurdly long and expensive. We can't really fix most major problems without fixing that first. But I have no idea how to fix that, and politicians have zero interest in fixing that and a lot of interest in keeping it as is.
What other punishment can you think of?
I can't, that's the point. Your proposal goes against the way most employment work, and indeed I cannot come up with another way to make it work. That just goes to show how unrealistic your idea is.
Ok, so what's your idea to fix patent system in general, without punishments?
I don't really know. TBH, I went along with the idea to fine the office itself more as riff on your idea to fine employees (which, for all the reasons above, I find highly unrealistic) than as a real solution. I don't think it's really a good solution to the problem (not that I have one to offer).
You could've said that earlier. It really sounded like you're proposing a viable alternative.
My guess would be that it would put the office in a situation where it cannot operate at all.
As long as it has budget, and I don't see it ever having no budget, it would continue to operate. It might get slower, but it can't disappear. Market laws don't apply to government institutions.
-
@Gąska said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
my experience, as least in Western Europe, is that governmental agencies that operate somewhat independently of the government (like a patent office) are suffering from huge budget cuts, not increases.
My experience is that governmental agencies independent of the government don't exist. Every high rank employee is a political seat, and they allget swapped when the party in power changes. But that might be specific to Eastern Europe.
Maybe it is specific, yes. But I can indeed see many agencies that are somewhat independent. The top executives are named by the government, so friends of the power in place, but these posts are not political posts per se, more like spoils of war. They also don't change with every change of government (they usually have their fixed length terms that sometimes align with political changes, but not always), and sometimes a good top executive can manage to befriend the new powers-that-be and stay in place for a second (third, ...) term even if they were initially put there by another party. So there is some degree of independence between the government and those agencies. There is a class of high-ranking public officers in charge of those, and they're not political figures (even if they do have some political sympathies that govern their careers, and sometimes they may become political figures later on but that's not a rule).
This is typically how public media (radio/TV) operate, but also a wide range of other public institutes, be it public research, health centre, museums & large cultural organisms, trade boards, health & safety inspections... Some are more tightly linked to a specific minister (so they don't have a strong autonomous public identity), some are more known by themselves, but they all have their own budget and structure.
I assume that the patent office is something similar, although it's likely that there isn't any more a national patent office nowadays (or at least not one that actually does anything...) and that it's handled at the EU level. Or maybe there is still a national patent office but patents they grant are automatically EU-wide ones? No idea...
Basically, if you know that you're going to be financially ruined if you lose, you are only going to sue when you believe that you are pretty sure to win, or when the benefit of winning is much larger than the cost of losing and you have deep enough pockets to cover the cost of losing if you ever do.
And this is why we can't have nice things: courts being absurdly long and expensive.
Well yes, but not only. I mean, the issue here is not that courts take too long or that they are too expensive, but also that, on principle, access to justice must be free for everyone. Of course, cheaper justice would make it, well, cheaper to access, but it's never going to be zero (someone has to pay the judge and clerks for their time, even if it's short!), and any cost strictly greater than 0 is a potential barrier to access for the poorest. You can offset some of that by having subsidies for the poorest ones, but that adds more complexity.
So yes, justice should be much, much faster (and cheaper), but that's not the only issue here.
I don't really know. TBH, I went along with the idea to fine the office itself more as riff on your idea to fine employees (which, for all the reasons above, I find highly unrealistic) than as a real solution. I don't think it's really a good solution to the problem (not that I have one to offer).
You could've said that earlier. It really sounded like you're proposing a viable alternative.
Sorry, I initially thought I was just making a side-remark, I did not intend this to become a full argument. I should indeed have said earlier that I don't really believe in it.
Ok, so what's your idea to fix patent system in general, without punishments?
Simple answer: I don't have one. I am very good at playing critic, and burning down ideas from other people. I am much less good at actually suggesting something that I don't myself burn down before I say it.
But my main view (and this applies to almost all parts of our complex societies, not just patents...) is that the only changes that have some hope of working are those that operate either on the very small, or on the very large scale, and that those in between (tweaking the existing system, like you propose) have no actual chance to work because they either encounter too many obstacles, or would be too easy to workaround. More often than not, intermediate changes have a negative long term effect and are worse than the initial state...
For example, I think we could easily change some tiny details of the systems (like reducing the length of patent protection by a couple of years) without breaking the system. It might have some positive impact by both reducing the incentive to sue someone for infringement (you might win against that infringement, but if your patent is expiring very soon anyway, what's the point?), and the incentive to actually infringe (if you know your competitor's patent is falling down in a couple of months, just delay the release of your thing a bit).
At the other end of the scale, we might try entirely changing the patent system. Not just tweaking how they are granted or not, but maybe entirely excluding some fields of activity from patenting. Or even destroy the patent system entirely and rely on the other form of IP protection instead. But this is very unlikely to ever happen (and those are not very good ideas either).
So probably the best we can realistically hope for are very small prods and tweaks that might, with luck, on the long term, nudge the system in a better direction. I don't have much hope for this either.
-
@remi said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
But then, as I said, this means they are asking for the government for a funding increase ("we got X last year but spent Y on fines, so pretty please can we get X+Y this year?"). I agree with you that bad PR is rarely enough to significantly move a government, but my experience, as least in Western Europe, is that governmental agencies that operate somewhat independently of the government (like a patent office) are suffering from huge budget cuts, not increases. They are already very hard pressed to do their current job with whatever resources the government grants them, and I very, very strongly doubt that is they were to ask for an increase to cover fines that they expect to have to pay, they would be told to fuck off.
A simpler technique would be to prohibit courts from partially invalidating a patent, and to instead say that if any clause is invalid due to being too broad, then the whole patent is invalid. This would encourage people filing for a patent (or their patent lawyer) to take extra care with getting the claims right, and it puts the onus for care on the people who are primary beneficiaries. While not perfect, it seems to be a mostly fair approach that doesn't heavily burden the public purse.
-
"Hm intel microcode topic." <clicks in, scrolls down, 80,000 word diatribe about... patent lawyers? Or something?>
-
@dkf said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
A simpler technique would be to prohibit courts from partially invalidating a patent, and to instead say that if any clause is invalid due to being too broad, then the whole patent is invalid. This would encourage people filing for a patent (or their patent lawyer) to take extra care with getting the claims right, and it puts the onus for care on the people who are primary beneficiaries. While not perfect, it seems to be a mostly fair approach that doesn't heavily burden the public purse.
I don't know, that might be what I call an intermediate measure that might create more problems than it solves. When filing, you would have to be too specific in order to be absolutely sure that your patent wouldn't be invalidated, and this in turn would make it easier to work around it by changing a little thing. So in effect, it would probably cause all patents to become useless.
-
@blakeyrat said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
"Hm intel microcode topic." <clicks in, scrolls down, 80,000 word diatribe about... patent lawyers? Or something?>
YMBNH
-
@blakeyrat said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
"Hm intel microcode topic." <clicks in, scrolls down, 80,000 word diatribe about... patent lawyers? Or something?>
The favorite pastime of the blakeyrat - to complain that other people are having conversations.
-
@pie_flavor what else to do here, Intel rolled back the license change like 12 hours after they made it
-
@Gribnit We could talk about Rust. Blakey really hates when we talk about Rust.
-
@blakeyrat said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
"Hm intel microcode topic." <clicks in, scrolls down, 80,000 word diatribe about... patent lawyers? Or something?>
Your own fault for not reading carefully. It was never an Intel microcode topic; it was an Intel microcode licensing topic. If you expected a discussion on licensing to be interesting, I don't know why.
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
@blakeyrat said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
"Hm intel microcode topic." <clicks in, scrolls down, 80,000 word diatribe about... patent lawyers? Or something?>
Your own fault for not reading carefully. It was never an Intel microcode topic; it was an Intel microcode licensing topic. If you expected a discussion on licensing to be interesting, I don't know why.
Subtracting timestamps on an Intel CPU is illegal under the Intel microcode license.
-
@ben_lubar No, it's legal. You just can't tell people the result.
-
@Scarlet_Manuka said in New Intel microcode license disallows benchmarking:
No, it's legal. You just can't tell people the result.
: So have you finished these benchmarks on the new feature yet?
: Yes, but if I tell you the results I'll have to kill you.
uuencoding - Wikipedia
