The applicable law may not exactly be the same for the same, but I don't think it's a good idea anyway.
When I read what the content of this project, I understood the main point was to avoid such IP encumberment. If there has to be reverse engineering and all, then this project is no longer an "open graphics" project, I'm sorry to say that. People may be able to use programs like Verilog and all and escape from prosecution, but very few would actually dare to sell the cards as they would be encouraging IP violation, no matter what country they are located in. This would hurt sales quite a bit and in all cases it won't be the success originally hoped for. Not to mention that Conexant could simply sue Tech Source for condoning or encouraging people to break their IP. I believe that we should look more closely at alternative solutions. > On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:40, Timothy Miller wrote: >> On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:04:29 -0500, Andr� Pouliot >> > >> > To me it seem a possible options but I do see one or >> 2 potential problem. One of them is the card estate >> that you work on. We already have a FPGA, a serial >> eprom, eeprom for the card bios, 4 memory chip, the >> power supply section and now your talking to add >> potentially 3 more chip? Sorry but I can't see how >> it will all fit in. Also during production each >> additional chip add the probability of a defect and >> a additinal cost. Myself I would like to a single >> chip solution for the display if possible. I know >> the connexant is a closed part but if it can reduce >> the card necesary estate and free some space on the >> FPGA, because each extra chip will add some, well it >> is a needed evil. And nobody said that this chip >> can't be reverse enginnered. :) >> >> Ladies and gentlemen, I beseech you to gaze upon the >> visage of one who has a mega-clue about what it's like >> to manufacture a card. >> >> In other words, you are so spot-on about this, it's >> painful. :) Thank you for explaining this so >> succinctly. >> >> My opinion is that we should just keep looking. >> Surely, Conexant isn't the only company that produces >> a single-chip solution to our specifications. I also >> don't think it's necessarily a good idea for Tech >> Source to engage in something that might be construed >> as an IP violation. If they don't want our business, >> let it be their loss. > > I wasn't suggesting you to break their IP. Since a lot > of people on this mailing-list are not from the USA the > applicable law are not the same. Also the interest for > reverse enginered spec would be for the hobbyist who > would like to use it and this type of people do know > habitualy Verilog or VHDL. > > _______________________________________________ > Open-graphics mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics > List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC > (www.duskglow.com) _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
