Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!newshost.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!vic.news.telstra.net!news.mira.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news1.digital.com!decwrl!amd!netcomsv!uu4news.netcom.com!netcomsv!uu3news.netcom.com!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!stephenk From: stephenk@netcom.com (Stephen Knilans) Subject: Re: Why to not buy Matrox Millennium Message-ID: <stephenkDoyxww.902@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest) References: <4j21ph$crr@slappy.cs.utexas.edu> <slrn4lbb5r.ai.mark@hunter.mas.org> <4jdac1$edc@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 08:22:08 GMT Lines: 36 Sender: stephenk@netcom.netcom.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.apps:13722 comp.os.linux.development.system:20092 comp.os.linux.x:27743 comp.os.linux.hardware:34504 comp.os.linux.setup:47452 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:307 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2804 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2583 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16090 In article <4jdac1$edc@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >In article <slrn4lbb5r.ai.mark@hunter.mas.org>, >Mark Swanson <mark@hunter.mas.org> wrote: >-On 23 Mar 1996 17:34:09 -0600, Peter F. McDermott <pmcdermo@cs.utexas.edu> wrote: > >2) Will the release of the information to develop other software compromise >any trade secrets the company uses to do business? > > >Now interestingly enough most company policies focus on point #2. I quote >from the original Matrox message. > >->We have a closed architecture chip set. We have the fastest >->board on the market. The reason for this is our chip set. We did not create >->our own chip set, in which we spent millions of dollars, so that our >->competitors can steal our designs. > >I fail to understand how releasing an interface specification for a piece >of hardware in any way enables a competitor to steal designs for the >underlaying hardware. It reeks of a half cocked argument. Explain how >Diamond or #9 will be able to steal and manufacture Matrox's chip from a >list of registers along with the values that make the chip do accelerated 3D? >I can't see it. I'm willing to listen to any arguments to the contrary. > The entire computer industry tried this with software DECADES ago. In theory, and practice by dozens of companies over almost 2 decades bears this out, it is IMPOSSIBLE to protect software through a CP scheme UNLESS no part is readable by the computer(which renders it useless). Any attempt to do this with a BIOS ROM encourages incompatibility with systems and software! Translation? Their failure to release specs will NOT keep companies from copying the register interface. Steve