There are no push/pull instructions. There have been 'program call' and 'program return' instructions since the 80's, but these are complex instructions used for switching between addressing modes, address spaces, etc. Just the description of how they work takes almost 17 pages in the POP.

Trust me, I know infinitely more about it than you do.

You said 'because of capacity on demand...'. This is, in fact, false. The thing that lets them control the performance and configuration of the machine is not 'capacity on demand', it is 'Licensed Internal Code Controlled Configuration.' The use of LIC CC also allows them to offer 'capacity on demand', but they are not the same thing, and LIC CC does not require COD. Also, notice the name of that facility, it should give you a clue as to what is actually licensed.

Having said that, I already explained why multiple performance levels are offered. Why would you pay (for hardware and software) for more performance than you need?

You have no idea what you are talking about. "Capacity on demand" has nothing to do with why a BC would run at 1/100 it's capacity (and there is no such thing as a 'base' model.)

In the mainframe world software is often priced by the capacity of the machine it is running on. Therefore, a customer who does not require speed can save significant money by ordering a machine that has had it's capacity reduced. That saves money on both the hardware and software.

One of the reasons IBM does not license z/OS to run on Hercules is because it breaks that pricing method. How would IBM and/or ISVs price their software, when the performance of the machine it is running on is completely unknown and changable? The other reason they won't license is z/OS is because Hercules infringes several of it's patents.

What are you talking about? What the heck is 'native mainframe tech'? z/OS? By that logic, x86 is also 'dying' because servers are moving from Windows to Linux. In 2012 IBM sold more mainframes, as measured in units, capacity, and dollars, than at any point in it's history. Over half of the capacity was in the form of 'new workload' engines. In other words, the market grew, not shrank.

And what do you mean by 'taking perfomance seriously again'? There has never been a time when they didn't take performance seriously. Mainframes have been on an 18-24 month release cycle for decades, and every new machine has been significantly faster than the previous generation. The only time this wasn't true was in the mid-90s, when IBM changed the technology from bipolar TTL to CMOS microprocessors. That change wasn't because they didn't care about performance, but because customers no longer wanted machines that cost $40M and took up an entire room and used enough energy to power a small town. CMOS technology finally caught up to the performance of the old bipolar machines around 2000.

What computer do you consider 'more modern' than an IBM EC12? What makes you think the technology in mainframes is 'dying'?

Instead of relying on Wikipedia, why don't you try reading the actual patents (which you obviously have not done)?

The wikipedia entry says nothing about either Mr Nakamura's or Boston University's work in relation to these two patents (Mr Nakamura US 5290393, Boston University US 5686738). The patents are about how to grow the semiconductors, not simply what material they are made of. And those two methods of growing are, wait for it, different. Mr Nakamura grows the layers 'at at temperature of 900 to 1150.' Boston U grows it 'at a temperature of 600 in a nitrogen plasma'. This allows for a purer lattice without nitrogen vacancies.

Well I am sure that all those companies will be very happy that you were able to find such obvious stuff to invalidate the patent when they couldn't. Or maybe you are just talking out your ass. Yeah, I'll go with that one.

I think you need to look up the definitions of knowledge. Not one of them has the condition that a thing must be able to be used in practice.

Too bad the patent is not for blue leds, but for a method of making them.

Uh, right. Too bad this patent was filed in 1991.

Patents DO NOT 'retard' the advancement of knowledge. Patents are open. Patents can be freely discussed. What you can not do is create a thing with that knowledge (without the permission of the patent holder). And I don't know of any university that claims it exists so any manufacturer can make stuff without having to spend money developing it.

Your 'funding' argument makes no sense either. You yourself said that universities (and especially research universities) are non-profit. That means that all of the money they make goes back into the university. So, if some university patents some things, and makes money from that, clearly not ALL of the money provided for funding the discovery came from the public. A university that has both public funding AND recovers some of it's costs through patent licensing has more money to spend doing more research. Where, exactly, is the problem with that?

Actually, it is nothing like OSS. First, and most obviously, is that there is almost zero cost associated with developing OSS. On the other hand, there is a tremendous cost associated with doing semiconductor research. The money to fund the research (including all the things that did not work) has to come from somewhere.

The second thing that needs to be considered is what motivates people. For OSS, there are basically two groups contributing - people who are not paid (hobbyists) and business. Hobbyists, of course, don't need a motive - they do it because they enjoy it. A vanishingly small number of people are going to be able to develop blue LEDs as a hobby. However, must OSS contributions are from businesses. So why do they do it? Because it has a good ROI. The money from their increased business more than offsets the cost of donating to OSS. And that is because nobody is making money selling OSS. They are selling some other product (support, hardware, whatever). The OSS itself is not the value they are selling.

Now take the example of blue LEDs. Does it make even the slightest bit of sense to think that Apple, for instance, is going to go to the major expense of developing a blue LED to make their product look cool, then just give that away to everyone else? Why would they (or anyone else)? The only people who are going to have an interest in developing a blue LED are those who either want to sell blue LEDs, or they want to sell the technology to make blue LEDs. And in neither case does it make even the slightest bit of sense that they would give that away.

Do you honestly think that we would have near the things we have today if not for patents? Do you really think some hobbyists were going to invent the transistor, the microchip, the complicated and expensive processes and tooling for manufacturing ever smaller and more powerful chips, battery technology, touch screens, all the lightweight but strong materials we have, LEDs, whatever? If so, you are seriously deluding yourself.

Patents have existed for only a few hundred years. People have existed for thousands of times longer. Why were the ancient Babylonians not walking around with cell phones? Why did Da Vinci's inventions only exist as drawings, and not practical things? How were we able to go from communicating only by sending letters to being able to to see and talk to someone anywhere on Earth with a small handheld device that weighs a few ounces? Could any of those things have to do with having a financial incentive to work on them? Just maybe?

Nobody says that patents are REQUIRED for innovation to occur. The purpose of patents is to PROMOTE innovation. Yes, there will always be people who invent with no financial incentive (particularly for things that don't require any expense). However, there are millions of other people who are capable of inventing, but need to make a living. The purpose of patents is to urge THEM to invent. Whether that prodding comes in the form of making and selling your own products, or whether it comes in the form of a paycheck from someone else who is hoping to cash in on your work does not matter. The end result is things get invented.

And your example sucks. You did not invent anything, you just recreated something by using the knowledge gained from the people who did invent those things. Come back to us when you have actually invented a useful or desirable thing, and someone else is making and selling it cheaper than you because they didn't have to go to the expense of inventing it.

They can't do what he said. The manufacturers of the LEDs have not infringed the patents, because they did not make, use, sell, or offer to sell the LEDs in the US, nor did they import them. Apple, et al, did that. What the customers can do however, if they are so inclined, is sue their suppliers (after they settle with BU.) But there is no way they can just pass the blame like he suggested.

Say what? Exactly who are Apple, etc, customers of? Certainly not BU. And what do Apple, et al do with those LEDs? They import them into the US, then they sell them. And here is what the US Patent law says: Whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term the patent therefor, infringes the patent. You know how long that statement has been in patent law? Since Thomas Jefferson wrote it.