NEC processors banned for 386 industrial espionage?

[Quadibloc]

I've been able to find information on the Web about the time when
Intel sued NEC for copying their microcode in their V20 microprocessor,
and Intel lost, because NEC demonstrated they used clean-room
techniques to write their microcode.

However, later, I very distinctly remembered that a judge banned all
future imports of 8086-compatible chips made by NEC into the
United States, because of an attempt by NEC to engage in industrial
espionage to find out details of Intel's forthcoming 32-bit chip, that
which would later become the 80386.

Although I remember this news item, I have not been able to find
out any details of what happened - as I can't find any references to
this on the Web by means of a Google search.

Interestingly, I found that NEC made the V60, mainly sold in Japan
for use in video games, which was a 32-bit extension of the 8086
which differed from the 80386.

John Savard

[OldbieOne]

Post by Quadibloc
I've been able to find information on the Web about the time when
Intel sued NEC for copying their microcode in their V20 microprocessor,
and Intel lost, because NEC demonstrated they used clean-room
techniques to write their microcode.

Here is the droid you're looking for...
https://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/08/business/intel-loses-copyright-case-to-nec.html

Intel LOST the case against NEC, but the judge ruled that microcode was
copyrightable.

Post by Quadibloc
However, later, I very distinctly remembered that a judge banned all
future imports of 8086-compatible chips made by NEC into the
United States, because of an attempt by NEC to engage in industrial
espionage to find out details of Intel's forthcoming 32-bit chip, that
which would later become the 80386.

I do not believe this was the case, at least from what I've been able to find
online. But it is something I oft heard repeated in internet lore in the early
90's when the topic of NEC came up.

Interesting nonetheless

[Quadibloc]

Post by OldbieOne

Post by Quadibloc
However, later, I very distinctly remembered that a judge banned all
future imports of 8086-compatible chips made by NEC into the
United States, because of an attempt by NEC to engage in industrial
espionage to find out details of Intel's forthcoming 32-bit chip, that
which would later become the 80386.

I do not believe this was the case, at least from what I've been able to find
online. But it is something I oft heard repeated in internet lore in the early
90's when the topic of NEC came up.
Interesting nonetheless

One possibility is that, since the first judge in the Intel versus NEC
case noted above recused himself, is that a different judgment was
reached than had been almost reached earlier in the battle.

However, there must be some reason that the NEC V60 never made
it to the U.S.. That was NEC's 32-bit version of the 8086; it switched
to a different, RISC-like instruction set when it left 16-bit mode.

They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Post by Quadibloc
However, there must be some reason that the NEC V60 never made
it to the U.S.. That was NEC's 32-bit version of the 8086; it switched
to a different, RISC-like instruction set when it left 16-bit mode.
They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

Not quite right; the V60 was more VAX-like than RISC-like.

John Savard

[OldbieOne]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by OldbieOne

Post by Quadibloc
However, later, I very distinctly remembered that a judge banned all
future imports of 8086-compatible chips made by NEC into the
United States, because of an attempt by NEC to engage in industrial
espionage to find out details of Intel's forthcoming 32-bit chip, that
which would later become the 80386.

I do not believe this was the case, at least from what I've been able to find
online. But it is something I oft heard repeated in internet lore in the early
90's when the topic of NEC came up.
Interesting nonetheless

One possibility is that, since the first judge in the Intel versus NEC
case noted above recused himself, is that a different judgment was
reached than had been almost reached earlier in the battle.

Good point!

Post by Quadibloc
However, there must be some reason that the NEC V60 never made
it to the U.S.. That was NEC's 32-bit version of the 8086; it switched
to a different, RISC-like instruction set when it left 16-bit mode.

I'm thinking something about it must have been covered by the earlier Chip Act
of 1984?

Post by Quadibloc
They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

True. I seem to recall Apple (well, Motrolla, who did the design and fab for
Apple) were planning something similar for Mackintosh computers around the same
time as well. Some sort of hybrid "classic" Intel 16-bit compatibility with
32-bit RISC architecture.


--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC

[Scott Lurndal]

did make

Post by Quadibloc
They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

True. I seem to recall Apple (well, Motrolla, who did the design and fab =
for
Apple) were planning something similar for Mackintosh computers around =
the same
time as well.

Apple was planning on using the Motorola 88110, but ended up using
PowerPC instead, which basically killed the 88k processor line.

[OldbieOne]

Post by Scott Lurndal

did make

Post by Quadibloc
They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

True. I seem to recall Apple (well, Motrolla, who did the design and fab =
for
Apple) were planning something similar for Mackintosh computers around =
the same
time as well.

Apple was planning on using the Motorola 88110, but ended up using
PowerPC instead, which basically killed the 88k processor line.

That's right! I forget what the driver was behind the decision though. I am
still rather upset at Apple for essentially crippling my G5 powerMac with all
the bells and whistles a little less than a year after purchasing it, by
stopping support of the Motorolla processors for future OS releases. There was
one more OS after the one it shipped with, and no more.

I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel at the
time. I mean, it's hard to argue otherwise anymore as the whole marketplace
shifts towards RISC architecture from mobile devices through to the latest Mac
offerings.


--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC

[Scott Lurndal]

make
=3D

Post by Scott Lurndal

did make

Post by Quadibloc
They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

True. I seem to recall Apple (well, Motrolla, who did the design and =

fab =3D

Post by Scott Lurndal

for
Apple) were planning something similar for Mackintosh computers around =

=3D

Post by Scott Lurndal

the same
time as well.

Apple was planning on using the Motorola 88110, but ended up using
PowerPC instead, which basically killed the 88k processor line.

That's right! I forget what the driver was behind the decision though. I =
am
still rather upset at Apple for essentially crippling my G5 powerMac with=
all
the bells and whistles a little less than a year after purchasing it, by
stopping support of the Motorolla processors for future OS releases. =
There was
one more OS after the one it shipped with, and no more.
I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel=
at the time.

Architectural superiority does't make money.

We had produced a Unix server using the 88100, and were
designing a high-end follow-on when the 88110 was terminated.

We evaluated all the alternatives (MIPS, PPC, Sparc, x86) and
after the evaluation completed, we selected x86. A good choice
both at the time, and in retrospect. Intel has performed
miracles turning the 8086 into a viable somewhat modern architecture.

Sure it has its warts, but so does any architecture that survives
for half a century.

[OldbieOne]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 22:26:20 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) did make
me awaken from my chaotic existentialism when they didst announce:

<snipped>

Post by Scott Lurndal

I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel=
at the time.

Architectural superiority does't make money.
We had produced a Unix server using the 88100, and were
designing a high-end follow-on when the 88110 was terminated.
We evaluated all the alternatives (MIPS, PPC, Sparc, x86) and
after the evaluation completed, we selected x86. A good choice
both at the time, and in retrospect. Intel has performed
miracles turning the 8086 into a viable somewhat modern architecture.
Sure it has its warts, but so does any architecture that survives
for half a century.

I agree they've done a stellar job at keeping it viable. At this point, I'm not
entirely sure it really has any x86 left in it though. I must admit that I
haven't been keeping up with processor design for a few years now though, so I
could well be wrong. It just seemed that Intel was steering their processors
into RISC territory?


--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC using
Forte Agent News Reader .99g/32

[Johnny Billquist]

Post by OldbieOne
<snipped>

Post by Scott Lurndal

I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel=
at the time.

Architectural superiority does't make money.
We had produced a Unix server using the 88100, and were
designing a high-end follow-on when the 88110 was terminated.
We evaluated all the alternatives (MIPS, PPC, Sparc, x86) and
after the evaluation completed, we selected x86. A good choice
both at the time, and in retrospect. Intel has performed
miracles turning the 8086 into a viable somewhat modern architecture.
Sure it has its warts, but so does any architecture that survives
for half a century.

I agree they've done a stellar job at keeping it viable. At this point, I'm not
entirely sure it really has any x86 left in it though. I must admit that I
haven't been keeping up with processor design for a few years now though, so I
could well be wrong. It just seemed that Intel was steering their processors
into RISC territory?

You can still boot ancient DOS on a current x86 ancestor.

Johnny

[OldbieOne]

Post by Johnny Billquist

Post by OldbieOne
<snipped>

Post by Scott Lurndal

I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel=
at the time.

Architectural superiority does't make money.
We had produced a Unix server using the 88100, and were
designing a high-end follow-on when the 88110 was terminated.
We evaluated all the alternatives (MIPS, PPC, Sparc, x86) and
after the evaluation completed, we selected x86. A good choice
both at the time, and in retrospect. Intel has performed
miracles turning the 8086 into a viable somewhat modern architecture.
Sure it has its warts, but so does any architecture that survives
for half a century.

I agree they've done a stellar job at keeping it viable. At this point, I'm not
entirely sure it really has any x86 left in it though. I must admit that I
haven't been keeping up with processor design for a few years now though, so I
could well be wrong. It just seemed that Intel was steering their processors
into RISC territory?

You can still boot ancient DOS on a current x86 ancestor.

Past the 7th gen?

--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC using
Forte Agent News Reader .99g/32

[Peter Flass]

Post by OldbieOne

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Quadibloc
They anticipated the Itanium, one could almost say.

True. I seem to recall Apple (well, Motrolla, who did the design and fab >>for
Apple) were planning something similar for Mackintosh computers around >>the same
time as well.

Apple was planning on using the Motorola 88110, but ended up using
PowerPC instead, which basically killed the 88k processor line.

That's right! I forget what the driver was behind the decision though. I am
still rather upset at Apple for essentially crippling my G5 powerMac with all
the bells and whistles a little less than a year after purchasing it, by
stopping support of the Motorolla processors for future OS releases. There was
one more OS after the one it shipped with, and no more.
I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel at the
time. I mean, it's hard to argue otherwise anymore as the whole marketplace
shifts towards RISC architecture from mobile devices through to the latest Mac
offerings.

Motorola was far superior to Intel at any time. As we all know, the best
technology is often not the winner.

Post by OldbieOne
--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Post by OldbieOne
That's right! I forget what the driver was behind the decision though. I am
still rather upset at Apple for essentially crippling my G5 powerMac with all
the bells and whistles a little less than a year after purchasing it, by
stopping support of the Motorolla processors for future OS releases. There was
one more OS after the one it shipped with, and no more.
I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel at the
time. I mean, it's hard to argue otherwise anymore as the whole marketplace
shifts towards RISC architecture from mobile devices through to the latest Mac
offerings.

The executive we reported when we started on HA/6000 (I renamed it
HA/CMP, when started working on technical cluster scaleup and national
labs and commercial cluster scaleup with RDBMS vendors), went over to
head up Somerset (prior to IBM, he was at Motorola, and later left to be
president of MIPS) ... for AIM; apple, ibm, motorola ... to do single
chip power/pc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_600

60x bus:

In order to help the effort to rapidly incorporate the 88110 bus
architecture to the 601 for the benefit of the alliance and its
customers, Motorola management provided not only the 88110 bus
architecture specifications, but also a handful of 88110 bus-literate
designers to help with the 60x bus logic implementation and
verification. Given the Apple system design team was familiar with the
I/O bus structure from Motorola's 88110 and this I/O bus implementation
was well defined and documented, the 601 team adopted the bus technology
to improve time to market. The bus was renamed the 60x bus once
implemented on the 601.[2] These Motorola (and a small number of Apple)
designers joined over 120 IBM designers in creating the 601.

... snip ...

another one of the issues was that 801/risc (ROMP, RIOS, POWER, etc) had
no cache concistancy ... so wasn't very conducive to doing
multiprocessor implementations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_88000

The first implementation of the 88000 ISA was the MC88100
microprocessor, which included an integrated FPU. Mated to this was the
MC88200 MMU and cache controller. The idea behind this splitting of
duties was to allow multiprocessor systems to be built more easily; a
single MC88200 could support up to four MC88100s. However, this also
meant that building the most basic system, with a single processor,
required both chips and considerable wiring between them, driving up
costs. This was likely to be another major reason for the 88000's
limited success.

This was later addressed by the superscalar MC88110, which combined the
CPU, FPU, MMU, and L1 cache into a single package. An additional
modification, made at the behest of MIT's *T project, resulted in the
MC88110MP, including on-chip communications for use in multi-processor
systems.[9] A version capable of speeds up to 100 MHz was planned as the
MC88120, but was never built.

... snip ...

[OldbieOne]

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler

Post by OldbieOne
That's right! I forget what the driver was behind the decision though. I am
still rather upset at Apple for essentially crippling my G5 powerMac with all
the bells and whistles a little less than a year after purchasing it, by
stopping support of the Motorolla processors for future OS releases. There was
one more OS after the one it shipped with, and no more.
I'd still argue that the Motorolla architecture was far superior to Intel at the
time. I mean, it's hard to argue otherwise anymore as the whole marketplace
shifts towards RISC architecture from mobile devices through to the latest Mac
offerings.

The executive we reported when we started on HA/6000 (I renamed it
HA/CMP, when started working on technical cluster scaleup and national
labs and commercial cluster scaleup with RDBMS vendors), went over to
head up Somerset (prior to IBM, he was at Motorola, and later left to be
president of MIPS) ... for AIM; apple, ibm, motorola ... to do single
chip power/pc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM_alliance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_600
In order to help the effort to rapidly incorporate the 88110 bus
architecture to the 601 for the benefit of the alliance and its
customers, Motorola management provided not only the 88110 bus
architecture specifications, but also a handful of 88110 bus-literate
designers to help with the 60x bus logic implementation and
verification. Given the Apple system design team was familiar with the
I/O bus structure from Motorola's 88110 and this I/O bus implementation
was well defined and documented, the 601 team adopted the bus technology
to improve time to market. The bus was renamed the 60x bus once
implemented on the 601.[2] These Motorola (and a small number of Apple)
designers joined over 120 IBM designers in creating the 601.
... snip ...
another one of the issues was that 801/risc (ROMP, RIOS, POWER, etc) had
no cache concistancy ... so wasn't very conducive to doing
multiprocessor implementations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_88000

I had no idea the relationship between Apple and Motorola was that integrated!

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
The first implementation of the 88000 ISA was the MC88100
microprocessor, which included an integrated FPU. Mated to this was the
MC88200 MMU and cache controller. The idea behind this splitting of
duties was to allow multiprocessor systems to be built more easily; a
single MC88200 could support up to four MC88100s. However, this also
meant that building the most basic system, with a single processor,
required both chips and considerable wiring between them, driving up
costs. This was likely to be another major reason for the 88000's
limited success.

Interesting. So not only were there bus and cache issues, but the complexity of
of the design introduced fab issues in the manufacturing process.

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
This was later addressed by the superscalar MC88110, which combined the
CPU, FPU, MMU, and L1 cache into a single package. An additional
modification, made at the behest of MIT's *T project, resulted in the
MC88110MP, including on-chip communications for use in multi-processor
systems.[9] A version capable of speeds up to 100 MHz was planned as the
MC88120, but was never built.
... snip ...

I've never heard of the MC88110MP. Sounds like it would have been an industry
leading package.

I've always found the "what could have been's" far more interesting than the
"what was's" where it comes to circuit design.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. It's sending me down quite the rabbit
hole this evening :)


--
OldbieOne [TM]
The One Who Tells It Like It is!
Brought to you by RetroPC using
Forte Agent News Reader .99g/32

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:55:56 -1000

Post by Anne & Lynn Wheeler
The first implementation of the 88000 ISA was the MC88100
microprocessor, which included an integrated FPU. Mated to this was the
MC88200 MMU and cache controller. The idea behind this splitting of
duties was to allow multiprocessor systems to be built more easily; a
single MC88200 could support up to four MC88100s.

Now (thirty odd years later) I know why the Philips/Motorola 88100
unix boxes we used at the Inland Revenue had four processors. Not SMP
though since the kernel was single threaded.