OpenCores.org ARM Clone Removed From Web
An Anonymous Coward writes: ""A clone of the ARM7 32-bit RISC processor core, previously available free for download from the Internet, has been taken down or hidden" pending discussions between the core's designer and a Chinese representative of ARM Holdings plc (Cambridge, England)."
Remember, this is a reverse-engineered "clone in the form of a synthesizable Verilog language description."
Try here.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
> Reverse engineering protects OpenCores.org from
> being accused of corporate espionage, by proving
> that they legally obtained the information
> necessary to copy the core, but their posting of
> patented information to their website is what is
> being argued against.
There are NO rules against posting patented information. In fact, patenting REQUIRES full disclosure. Patents are NOT copyrights!
> Reverse engineering is nothing more than a
> legitimate way for engineers to steal the
> intellectual property of competitors and gain an
> unfair business advantage.
Using "legitimate" and "steal" in the same sentence just goes to prove that you have not understood the point of reverse engineerin, or
of patents for that matter.
You don't need to prevent reverse engineering if you are protected by a patent. A patent prohibits competitors from creating the same product, even if they reverse engineer it (which should not be necessary anyway, since the information is in the patent application anyway).
> ARM has invested millions of dollars and
> countless hours into developing their processor
> core, and they are completely justified in
> defending what is rightfully theirs against so-
> called "reverse engineering" patent theft.
Patents are not made to reward investment, but to reward products. It doesn't matter if you spent a billion on finding the result or it came to you in a dream.
> I'm pretty sure that without too much effort, I
> could figure out how that was made without
> looking at any of it's inventors design specs.
> Do I legally have a right to sell my own
> "reverse engineered" version of someone elses
> invention? I should think not!
And you would be right. That would be infringing on their patent. Now, if you found a radically different way to fry bacon in a microwave (more elaborate than putting it on paper tissue while cooking, which has lots of prior art), then you would not infrige on the patent, and would maybe even be eligable for your own patent.
/RS