Picoturbos url is predictably www.picoturbo.com

I suppose its a measure of ARM's success that someone is trying to copy them, I suspect this story could run and run !

[Edited by 144 at 22:10, 21/11/2000]

[Edited by 144 at 22:11, 21/11/2000]

[Edited by 144 at 22:12, 21/11/2000]

The real issue is this, can you copyright an instruction set ? I think not.

My read on the situation is that ARM will challenge some architectural features of the pt120, the instruction set is a lost cause. Consider for example the Transmeta Crusoe, its a VLIW chip that is produced by an organisation that is not Intel yet runs Intel x86 code (I am sure Intel would sue if they could).

ARM may challenge the use of register "shadowing" (where registers are swapped on mode changes), trouble is even this technique to some extent is already used in other chips.

I think if ARM simply litigate they may/may not succeed and in the meantime they advertise (loudly) that there is a second source of ARM compliant cores (Picoturbo probably subscribe to the view that no publicity is bad publicity).

IMHO ARMs best approach is to keep updating their cores, make them as fast, flexible and efficient as possible. They have a headstart over picoturbo, if they don't get too lazy (or greedy) they have nothing to worry about. They can also emphasise the range of support from respected licensees (can picoturbo ?)

Perhaps ARM should start looking at uprating their cores towards the HIGH END performance spectrum so that they (unlike Pt) can offer a full gamut of processing power from the ultra low end ARM710 to devices beyond the current ARM10 or xScale. That way they can keep their customers and attract new ones (that is using the carrot and not just the stick as it were).

The days when ARM can simply sit on their laurels and design processors for washing machines are gone - and not before time.