> If I understand the filing, I believe that the difference is that both > FLEX-ES and Hercules are in fact "instruction simulators", whereas PSI was producing an "instruction emulator".
You don't understand the filing. All three are emulators. Hercules differs only in that it doesn't cache the results of its interpretation for possible future use. Flex-ES and PSI work in remarkably similar ways, both companies actually using the expression "just in time" or JIT. It's entirely possible that this similarity is related to a non-disclosure PSI had on FSI's technology back in 1999 - maybe this will not be the last patent infringement suit we will see. IBM went to considerable lengths in 2004 to work out exactly what the PSI machine is - a real piece of hardware or just another emulator. It seems to think it walks like a duck, too. PSI has repeatedly denied that its system was an emulator - they'll now have a chance to convince a court. It took IBM from 29 March 2004 to 9 August 2004 to grant the licence. That's a fair length of time - enough for IBM to have determined that it was an emulation system that would be expected to violate the ICA clause? -- Phil Payne http://www.isham-research.co.uk +44 7833 654 800 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
