This doesn't change the fact that you're an idiot stuck in the past. The fact that half your arguments are flat out stupid, and the other half are flat out wrong shows me you're the one incapable of thinking critically.

"I know what technology is worth purchasing and using. Smartphones are not one of those technologies."

over a billion people disagree with you.

"They've been nothing much more than a marketing gimmick"

You either don't understand what one is capable of, or your'e too stupid to see the possibilities.

"a dangerous distraction for those on the road"

Because this is something we all do right? Use our phones on the road? Because one can do a thing it does not follow that one must do a thing. Really try to apply those critical thinking skills.

"Base fucking line price for a phone now days without contract runs you almost $500"

You're looking at the wrong phones. I can name at least 3 which came out well under $500.

" I can get portable computer hardware ten times as powerful for the same price that actually performs multitasking."

Android multitasks (more of your ignorance) and a phone fits in your pocket. The "10 times more powerful" computer hardware won't, and often doesn't come equipped with a cell transmitter unless you buy that separately.

I'm not even going to bother with the whole iphone example, it smacks of fucking idiocy and ignorance.

"ABSOLUTELY FUCKING USELESS. Meanwhile, I can do the same thing with a laptop, and I NEVER have to worry about losing the webpage when I go look at another program. And I haven't SINCE THE DAYS OF THE PENTIUM 2."

Good god, you really DO live in the past.

"Smartphones are poorly-designed, loaded with gimmicks, and for the price you pay, you get absolutely shit performance and usability in comparison to any other piece of real computer hardware near the same price."

Two different devices designed for entirely different use cases. It's obvious your experience and understanding is so minimal it can't even be taken seriously. You really are a complete idiot. Luddites need to shuffle off this mortal coil so we don't have to listen to them whine any more.

My bat works better, is more form fitting to my hand, and achieves greater velocity in a swing. It's not surprising you refuse to use the right tool for the job. Seems like the order of the day for people here.

Point being? My cellphone works while the power is out too. Making that argument is just stupid beyond all reason.

You guys can be idiots together. You act as if smartphones somehow don't do their jobs, or that they're all massively unstable which is total bullshit. The fact is, they do the job the legacy phones do, and more. They do it reliably too, despite what you'd like to believe.

I don't have to reboot. My phone works 100% of the time. I'm not sure what strange world you live in where smartphones are "not reliable", but it's certainly not this one.

I'm familiar with the Microchip implementation. This is a 300-MHz-class 32-bit processor. Not particularly modern and not really fertile ground for R&D.

We did have two or three suggestions from commenters of open MIPS processor implementations, some of which are more modern. One uses a proprietary high-level HDL, which I haven't investigated.

Don't call this alien. It's not alien if it lives here. It's terrestrial.

I found the commenter who posed this as a response to RISC-V interesting. The University of California at Berkeley has a completely public implementation, under the BSD license, without patents filed, which your effort appears to be positioned against.

It is a time-limit on damages, which is not the same thing as a time limit on lawsuits. There is still the potential to restrain an infringer who started 6 or more years ago from further infringement through the courts - and totally kill their business - even though damages for the infringement can not be recovered. And you can sue any other infringer.

Anything using the .net runtime is using significant amounts of windows assets. Just because you can't outright see it doesn't mean you're not using someone else's work. While we're at it, you're also using a compiler and an IDE you probably had nothing to do with the creation of.

Check out My Gate Array Project if you haven't already done so. The EE work is done by Chris Testa KD2BMH, I mostly do systems programming and business but do a lot of design checks, etc.

Repeating the AC because he's posted at karma 0. That's "University of California at Berkeley", AC, but the rest of this is spot on:

Berkeley University is pushing really hard to get universities to adopt RISC-V (an Open ISA and set of cores) as a basis for future processor and architecture research. The motivation behind RISC-V was to have a stable ISA that isn't patent encumbered, isn't owned by one company, and is easily extensible (OpenRISC didn't fit the bill here).

I can see that ARM and MIPS would have a problem with this, especially as there is nothing particularly innovative or performance gaining about either ISA, and some recent RISC-V cores have demonstrated similar performance to some recent ARM cores in half the area. This is there way of fighting back against something open that stands to lose them significant marketshare.

Cool. Someone found us the agenda!

I get paid to train EEs within large companies on intellectual property issues, and to help the companies and their attorneys navigate those issues. Infringement is rife within software companies. Not because anyone wants to infringe, but because of a total lack of due diligence driven by ignorance.

You've made my point for me.

And any informed patent holder knows that any violation must be prosecuted, or the validity of the patent evaporates.

No, that's just the ignorance of the uninformed that "everybody knows", but it's wrong. You don't lose your patent from failing to enforce it. You might be confusing it with trademarks, which can go into the public domain if you allow them to become generic terms rather than specific brands. And you can sometimes lose the capability of being able to enforce against a specific infringer if you hold back until the market develops, that's the Doctrine of Laches. But you don't lose your patent. Nor would you lose your copyright due to failure to enforce.

you must consult with Imagination before you change it.

Yes. And what happens then?

I haven't in general met many professors (or EEs) who understand much about intellectual property.