Reply by Steve at fivetrees September 5, 20052005-09-05
"Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message 
news:BioTRCCndMHDFAde@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> So regardless of bus size there is only 1 IO line. This is an RS232 line > running serial comms (bi-directional).
RS-232?? Are you sure? Serial bidirectional I can understand. RS-232, rather less so. Steve http://www.fivetrees.com
Reply by Chris Hills September 5, 20052005-09-05
In article <431cbfbd$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes
>Anton Erasmus wrote: >> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:47 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> >> wrote: >> >>>In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville >>><no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes >>> >>>>Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >>>>universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... >>> >>>The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will >>>have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power >>>lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or >>>Centronics. >> >> Arn't there some 32 bit MCUs with less than 32 I/O pins ? Wont they >> also fall under this patent ? > > Yes! - and it also exposes the nonsense of which "data bus" might they >mean, and the simple lunacy of the patents :)
In the case of smart cards there is no external data bus. In fact there is no external bus at all.
> What about the ARM variants that fetch 128 bits at a time from FLASH ? >Again, these do have an internal bus > I/O Pin count.
Which bus? they have several data buses, as do PowerPC. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by Chris Hills September 5, 20052005-09-05
In article <1125950671.6af3e681bf88775ed7ebd064643bfca6@teranews>, Anton
Erasmus <nobody@spam.prevent.net> writes
>On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:47 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> >wrote: > >>In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville >><no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes >>> >>>Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >>>universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... >> >>The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will >>have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power >>lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or >>Centronics. > >Arn't there some 32 bit MCUs with less than 32 I/O pins ? Wont they >also fall under this patent ? > >Regards > Anton Erasmus >
I haven't read the patent but... CPU Smart cards have only one interface off the chip of 6/8 pins (memory cards and secure memory cards are similar) 1 i/o 2 Clock 3 Reset 4 Vcc 5 Ground 6 There was a Vpp for programming but this is no longer used and is not conected as cards us an internal charge pump 7/8 Aux1 and Aux2 for future use and are not currenty used. So regardless of bus size there is only 1 IO line. This is an RS232 line running serial comms (bi-directional). Now it depends on when Microchip did this patent. The smart card patents date from 1968 in Germany, 1970 in Japan but the majority were in 1974 in France. The real production was not until 1984 in France. It is now an ISO Standard interface (ISO 7816). So Microchip will have to sue ISO (the international Standards Organisation) and every smart card manufacturer in the world (Hello Mastercard, Visa, AmEx etc :-) I expect this will amuse ANSI who are part of ISO.... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by Jim Granville September 5, 20052005-09-05
Anton Erasmus wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:47 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org> > wrote: > >>In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville >><no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes >> >>>Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >>>universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... >> >>The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will >>have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power >>lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or >>Centronics. > > Arn't there some 32 bit MCUs with less than 32 I/O pins ? Wont they > also fall under this patent ?
Yes! - and it also exposes the nonsense of which "data bus" might they mean, and the simple lunacy of the patents :) There are uC with 22 bit opcodes, for example, with < 22io, so their pin count is clearly < the opcode-data-bus width. What about the ARM variants that fetch 128 bits at a time from FLASH ? Again, these do have an internal bus > I/O Pin count. How about VLIW Graphics controllers, especially those with on chip, or stacked memory. Very clearly they have internal bus widths > i/o pins.... Then there are simple ones like Atmel's AT91SAM7S32, showing 21 i/o... The list goes on and on, all showing that there is an orthogonal relationship between IO Pin count, and any internal bus(es) widths on Microcontrollers. In no way, does one number dictate the other. -jg
Reply by Anton Erasmus September 5, 20052005-09-05
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 00:37:47 +0100, Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:

>In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville ><no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes >> >>Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >>universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... > >The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will >have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power >lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or >Centronics.
Arn't there some 32 bit MCUs with less than 32 I/O pins ? Wont they also fall under this patent ? Regards Anton Erasmus
Reply by Chris Hills September 4, 20052005-09-04
In article <431b6b5e$1@clear.net.nz>, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.co.nz> writes
> >Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they >universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width....
The smart cards use the ISO 7816 defined interface. SO Microchip will have to take on ISO. In any event it is just the serial port + power lines+ clock that is on a smart card it is an interface like RS232 or Centronics. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply by Jim Granville September 4, 20052005-09-04
Jim Granville wrote:
> This in the news: > > "Microchip sues Zilog over 8-pin microcontrollers" >
<snip>
> 5,847,450 Granted December 8, 1998 > Microcontroller having an n-bit data bus width with less than n I/O pins
> Prediction: This silliness will make Microhip a laughing stock in the > engineering area, and probably not make their stock holders too happy > either. > > They are going to have to sue Atmel, Fairchild, Philips ( and others ) > as well..... this will be amusing to follow. [What _was_ Steve thinking?]
An Update on this entertainment: Zilog have appointed lawyers [ to waste money on fighting this plain-nonsense ] : http://investor.zilog.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=107835&p=irol-newsArticle&t=Regular&id=748736&ticker=ZILG&script=410&layout=0 but perhaps more significant, is this NEW expansion of the MSP430 family from TI : http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/msp430f2013.html?DCMP=MSP430&HQS=Other+PR+msp430expansion The astute will realise that this moves the 16 bit MSP430, inside the coverage of the '450 patent, as the new members have only 14 pins [10 i/o < 16] ! Now, Microchip will have to sue TI as well !! - they really have bitten off more than they can chew on this path. Also, the WHOLE smartcard market will have to be sued, as they universally have IO pins less than the internal data bus width.... Q: Will this ever actually make it into open court, or will Steve wake up, and quickly move to stem Microchip further embarrasment ? -jg
Reply by Jonathan Kirwan August 17, 20052005-08-17
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 09:11:09 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

>"Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message >news:430242ac.358874421@news.ispnetbilling.com... >> >> I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but IHMO, this ain't one of them. >> McDonalds knew there was a problem, had several opportunities to get >> out from under it, but through corporate inertia (or just plain >> arrogance) decided not to. > >However, the urban legend charges on. To test this theory, call up your >local radio talk show. You can bend any conversation into the topic of the >McDonald's lawsuit.
This is because: (1) there was a concerted 'talking point' effort to make this case into something it wasn't, in some cases for other agendas; and (2) people are generally very lazy, don't want to do research or bother to study facts before coming to conclusions (which I argue were shaped by some with malice aforethought), and (3) they do not take serious responsibility for their own opinions -- thinking in some vague and confused way that "an equal right to an opinion is equivalent to having an equal opinion," which is definitely not true. As I like to remind people, "If you're willing to be selective in the evidence you consider, you could reasonably conclude that the earth is flat." Comprehensiveness is a rare commodity in people. Jon
Reply by Richard Henry August 17, 20052005-08-17
"Dave Hansen" <iddw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:430242ac.358874421@news.ispnetbilling.com...
> > I'm no fan of frivolous lawsuits, but IHMO, this ain't one of them. > McDonalds knew there was a problem, had several opportunities to get > out from under it, but through corporate inertia (or just plain > arrogance) decided not to.
However, the urban legend charges on. To test this theory, call up your local radio talk show. You can bend any conversation into the topic of the McDonald's lawsuit.
Reply by Paul Burke August 17, 20052005-08-17
Scott Moore wrote:
> > From what I have seen, patent examiners do a good job. Remember Einstein > was a patent examiner.
O si sic omnes!