New microprocessor architecture

Hi Friends,

I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so called
"Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been proved in
Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it is
very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors and
FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it to
companies so that people can use it but I do not know the procedure.
It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.

Thank you very much in advance.

Regards,

TLN

On Mar 3, 10:54 am, tranlenguyen2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Friends,
>
> I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so called
> "Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been proved in
> Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it is
> very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
> bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors and
> FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it to
> companies so that people can use it but I do not know the procedure.
> It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.
>
> Thank you very much in advance.

"There's many a slip twixt cup and lip".  Inventing something is a
notable effort.  Prospering from that achievement is a separate and
very different effort.  There is no receipt for promoting an
invention.  Securing a patent is a good start to prevent it from being
stolen.  But in electronics it is hard to invent something that can be
fully utilized without infringing on other patents.  That is why most
companies swap patents rather than to try to utilize just their own
patents.

Where does this leave the individual inventor?  In a hole that is hard
to climb out of.  First I would recommend that you determine which
application markets would get the most gain from changing from what
they are using now to your invention.  Then you need to understand
enough about their business to state the business case in terms they
will understand.  You also need to understand their business case
enough to be able to explain how *perceived* shortcomings in your
approach will not harm their buisness model.  This can be a lot easier
than trying to make them understand that the shortcomings don't
exist.  Remember that your view does not matter, only their view and
how you can shape it.

Keep in mind that a name can shape the initial impression, which for
many customers, may be the only impression that is ever formed.  So
choose your product name carefully.  You don't want to create the
wrong impression.  For example, the use of the word Network in the
name here implies that it would be for networking applications.  I
suspect this is not really the case and "Network" refers to how the
workings of the chip are interconnected.  But without getting any
further info, a potential customer may get the wrong impression and
never inquire further.

So in what markets do you see your processor design excelling beyond
the current and future processor architectures?

Your guidance was both very wise and beautifully presented!




"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1172941080.863220.28440@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com...
| On Mar 3, 10:54 am, tranlenguyen2...@yahoo.com wrote:
| > Hi Friends,
| >
| > I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so 
called
| > "Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been 
proved in
| > Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it 
is
| > very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
| > bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors 
and
| > FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it 
to
| > companies so that people can use it but I do not know the 
procedure.
| > It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.
| >
| > Thank you very much in advance.
|
| "There's many a slip twixt cup and lip".  Inventing something is a
| notable effort.  Prospering from that achievement is a separate and
| very different effort.  There is no receipt for promoting an
| invention.  Securing a patent is a good start to prevent it from 
being
| stolen.  But in electronics it is hard to invent something that can 
be
| fully utilized without infringing on other patents.  That is why 
most
| companies swap patents rather than to try to utilize just their own
| patents.
|
| Where does this leave the individual inventor?  In a hole that is 
hard
| to climb out of.  First I would recommend that you determine which
| application markets would get the most gain from changing from what
| they are using now to your invention.  Then you need to understand
| enough about their business to state the business case in terms they
| will understand.  You also need to understand their business case
| enough to be able to explain how *perceived* shortcomings in your
| approach will not harm their buisness model.  This can be a lot 
easier
| than trying to make them understand that the shortcomings don't
| exist.  Remember that your view does not matter, only their view and
| how you can shape it.
|
| Keep in mind that a name can shape the initial impression, which for
| many customers, may be the only impression that is ever formed.  So
| choose your product name carefully.  You don't want to create the
| wrong impression.  For example, the use of the word Network in the
| name here implies that it would be for networking applications.  I
| suspect this is not really the case and "Network" refers to how the
| workings of the chip are interconnected.  But without getting any
| further info, a potential customer may get the wrong impression and
| never inquire further.
|
| So in what markets do you see your processor design excelling beyond
| the current and future processor architectures?
| 

In article <1172941080.863220.28440@64g2000cwx.googlegroups.com>,
"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:
|> 
|> "There's many a slip twixt cup and lip".  Inventing something is a
|> notable effort.  Prospering from that achievement is a separate and
|> very different effort.  ...

Very true!  And the abilities needed for the two rarely occur in the
same person, for well-known psychological reasons.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Mar 3, 8:54 pm, tranlenguyen2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Friends,
>
> I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so called
> "Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been proved in
> Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it is
> very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
> bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors and
> FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it to
> companies so that people can use it but I do not know the procedure.
> It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> TLN

Hi

congratulations.
have you ever had a look at the DAPDNA architecture from IPLEX and the
picochip architecture? these architectures almost match your specs/
claims.

regards
ananth

On Mar 3, 5:54 pm, tranlenguyen2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Friends,
>
> I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so called
> "Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been proved in
> Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it is
> very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
> bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors and
> FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it to
> companies so that people can use it but I do not know the procedure.
> It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
> Regards,
>
> TLN

If you really want people to use it giving up on patent would be a
good starting point.

On Mar 4, 6:31 am, already5cho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 5:54 pm, tranlenguyen2...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hi Friends,
>
> > I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so called
> > "Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been proved in
> > Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it is
> > very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
> > bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors and
> > FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it to
> > companies so that people can use it but I do not know the procedure.
> > It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.
>
> > Thank you very much in advance.
>
> > Regards,
>
> > TLN
>
> If you really want people to use it giving up on patent would be a
> good starting point.


Yeah, I bet that is the way that ARM got people to use their
architecture, giving up their patents!

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 4, 6:31 am, already5cho...@yahoo.com wrote:

>> If you really want people to use it giving up on patent would be a
>> good starting point.
>
>
> Yeah, I bet that is the way that ARM got people to use their
> architecture, giving up their patents!

I don't think patents or not makes much of a difference.  What you
need is a convincing proof of concept -- few are willing to invest in
something completely new unless they can be sure it will be
worthwhile, and just having a paper design of an architecture with no
implementation, support chips, compilers, operating systems, etc. will
require massive investments to make commercially useful.

ARM had a proof of concept in the Archimedes computer from Acorn,
which persuaded Apple to invest in the CPU architecture (intending to
use it for their Newton PDA and, romours tell, for a home computer
that never saw the light of day).

	Torben

tranlenguyen2000@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hi Friends,
>=20
> I have one patent about a new microprocessor architecture so called
> "Network-on-Chip Dataflow Architecture". The patent has been proved in
> Germany, and is processed in the US. According to my analyzing, it is
> very powerful, low power consumption, and requires low memory
> bandwidth. Its performance lies in between normal microprocessors and
> FPGA prototypes depending on application. I want to introduce it to
> companies so that people can use it but I do not know the procedure.
> It would be very grateful if you could give me some advices.


Implement it on an FPGA ?

Rene
--=20
Ing.Buero R.Tschaggelar - http://www.ibrtses.com
& commercial newsgroups - http://www.talkto.net
Spilchb=FCel 1, 8342 Wernetshausen, Switzerland
ph. ++41 55 266 19 66 & ++41 44 937 23 67

On Mar 5, 4:44 am, torb...@app-0.diku.dk (Torben =C6gidius Mogensen)
wrote:
> "rickman" <gnu...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mar 4, 6:31 am, already5cho...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> If you really want people to use it giving up on patent would be a
> >> good starting point.
>
> > Yeah, I bet that is the way that ARM got people to use their
> > architecture, giving up their patents!
>
> I don't think patents or not makes much of a difference.  What you
> need is a convincing proof of concept -- few are willing to invest in
> something completely new unless they can be sure it will be
> worthwhile, and just having a paper design of an architecture with no
> implementation, support chips, compilers, operating systems, etc. will
> require massive investments to make commercially useful.
>
> ARM had a proof of concept in the Archimedes computer from Acorn,
> which persuaded Apple to invest in the CPU architecture (intending to
> use it for their Newton PDA and, romours tell, for a home computer
> that never saw the light of day).

Perhaps you missed my point.  I am not saying that a Patent is
everything.  Read my original post here.  I am saying that a Patent is
required to prevent others from stealing your invention, but you also
need to know how to market the invention to show how it is to the
advantage of your customers.

To say a patent does not make much of a difference is a bit silly.
Sure you can make your invention open source and let the world have
it, but that means you have to make your money by other means which is
not the same for hardware as it is for software.

I don't see why you are using ARM as an example.  That is my example
of how they are preventing the world from copying their famously
popular instruction set as compared to Intel who allowed their 8051
and x386 ISAs to be copied freely.  As a result Intel has lots of
direct competition for sockets and ARM is looking like the 32 bit 8051
except that they make money off of every chip built.  The only real
barrier to potential customers developing or using open source ARM
designs is the patent ARM has on an essential circuit I am told.  When
that runs out in another 10 or so years, ARM7 will be freely copied if
anyone still has interest in it.  Maybe that is why they have come out
with the Cortex M3, to start a new patent clock ticking?