Hacker News Reader

Machine architectures are very much copyrightable right? That's why Intel license x86 to AMD.

Thing is, for chip manufactures it makes no sense not to allow others to call this x86 API. Things could get dicier for other who try and virtualize a machine instruction set.

Isn't x86 licensing situation caused only by patents?

ARM has built a business around selling licenses for an instruction set, with multiple third parties implementing said instruction set in silicon.

ARM uses patents to prevent other implementations, not copyright law.

I don't see the similarity.

A compiler outputs machine code, it doesn't implement machine code.

Google's Java implementation implements Java APIs.

It might not matter to the law which side of an interface you're on, if your work is still clearly derivative (in the legal sense) of that interface design.

That sounds like a win for RISC.