Re: R6502AP

From: Nate Lawson <*nate_at_root.org*> Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2014 12:04:46 -0800 Message-Id: <3426B4CF-07B6-4121-9801-711CD7399083@root.org> · nate_at_root.org

On Nov 29, 2014, at 3:45 PM, Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 01:20:14PM -0800, Nate Lawson wrote:
>> 2. Patents — the 65xx was designed by ex-members of the 6800 team. They reused some general ideas but improved on them. It would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison of the two architectures.
> 
> The general layout of the chip is much the same (PLA on top, "random logic"
> under it, then a row of big drivers for the ALU/bus/reg control; and under
> that, eight rows, one per bit, of the busses/regs/ALU; on the left and
> bottom of that address pins; on the right, data pins).
> 
> The detailed implementation is very different, esp. the points the 6800
> patents are about: state machines and bus structure.  
...

I was thinking the patent dispute was more about the NMOS process in general. Did Motorola have general silicon production patents that they could have used against MOS? In fact, are the lawsuit filings public and archived somewhere visible?

-Nate

       Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list