From: Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>
To: andersen@codepoet.org
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Philippe Gerum <rpm@idealx.com>
Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Adeos nanokernel for Linux kernel
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 06:12:11 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CFB40FB.E997F3E6@opersys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3CFB2A38.60242CBA@opersys.com> <20020603084606.GA15986@codepoet.org> <3CFB3378.5EB7420@opersys.com> <20020603095202.GA16392@codepoet.org>
Erik Andersen wrote:
> So will we soon be seeing a port of RTAI to a linux kernel module
> which is implemented as a separate Adeos domain, allowing RTAI
> apps to bypass US patent 5995745? A quick glance over that
> patent leaves me uncertain whether this indeed bypasses the
> fundamental "invention" of a "process for running a general
> purpose computer operating system using a real time operating
> system". It still looks to me like a real time operating system
> (Adeos) running real time and non-real time tasks with a general
> purpose operating system as one of the non-real time tasks...
> Could you summarize (for non-lawyers such as myself) how this
> bypasses the claims in the patent?
The problem here is the "quick glance" (no offense intended). The
most important part of a patent is its claims. In the case of the
rtlinux patent, there are 11 claims. There are 2 sorts of claims,
independent claims and dependent claims. In this patent, there are
2 independent claims and 9 claims that depend on these 2 root
claims. If you can show that a method is not an implementation of
those 2 root claims, you're clear.
The 2 root claims in this patent are claim 1 & 7. Both of these
contain the following statements [1]:
> A process for running a general purpose computer operating system
> using a real time operating system, including the steps of:
>
> a) providing a real time operating system for running real time
> tasks and components and non-real time tasks;
>
> b) providing a general purpose operating system as one of the
> non-real time tasks;
>
> c) preempting the general purpose operating system as needed for
> the real time tasks; and
>
> d) preventing the general purpose operating system from blocking
> preemption of the non-real time tasks.
First, the introductory phrase doesn't match. Any RTOS above Adeos
does not run Linux. The RTOS does not catch all interrupts and
decide which ones go to Linux and which don't. In fact, it is
very possible that the RTOS isn't even aware of Linux's existence.
All it sees is Adeos with which it interacts to get everything it
needs. Furthermore, the RTOS has no idea if someone else is
before him in the ipipe.
As for the claims, we just need to take a look at "a" and "b" to
see that it doesn't match:
a) Adeos is certainly not an RTOS and it certainly doesn't have any
"tasks". It doesn't even have a scheduler. All it does is distribute
hardware resources to whoever asks for them. Note that "Exokernel"
for instance, did have a "round-robin" scheduler. So even if Adeos
had a scheduler, it would still be considered a nanokernel.
b) This one doesn't apply to Adeos for the same reasons as "a".
Also this phrase doesn't apply to any RTOS above Adeos because
any such RTOS need not even know Linux is there. All it needs to
know is that it has to call on adeos_suspend_domain() to go into
a dormant state when it doesn't have any more "ready" tasks. In
no way does it have a "Linux" task, as RTLinux and RTAI clearly
do.
Karim
[1]
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%275,995,745%27.WKU.&OS=PN/5,995,745&RS=PN/5,995,745
===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
karim@opersys.com
Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-06-03 10:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-06-03 8:35 [ANNOUNCE] Adeos nanokernel for Linux kernel Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-03 8:46 ` Erik Andersen
2002-06-03 8:56 ` Alessandro Rubini
2002-06-03 9:14 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-03 9:52 ` Erik Andersen
2002-06-03 10:05 ` Alessandro Rubini
2002-06-03 10:12 ` Karim Yaghmour [this message]
2002-06-03 10:33 ` Erik Andersen
2002-06-03 10:38 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-03 11:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-03 9:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-04 19:29 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-06-05 2:20 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 2:40 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-06-05 2:57 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 13:51 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-06-05 14:25 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 15:37 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-06-05 17:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 18:06 ` Mark Mielke
2002-06-05 18:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 19:13 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-06-05 19:40 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 20:51 ` Mark Mielke
2002-06-05 21:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 21:22 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-06-05 21:55 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-06 8:52 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-06-06 10:58 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-06 14:03 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-06-06 16:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 20:48 ` Mark Mielke
2002-06-06 8:34 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-06-08 13:50 ` john slee
2002-06-08 13:59 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-06-06 21:21 ` Pavel Machek
2002-06-07 1:35 ` Mark Mielke
2002-06-07 2:42 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-07 2:48 ` Mark Mielke
2002-06-07 10:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-07 21:35 ` Pavel Machek
2002-06-05 9:41 ` Ingo Oeser
2002-06-05 18:20 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-05 3:56 ` J Sloan
2002-06-05 4:08 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 7:28 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-06-05 11:15 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-06-05 12:56 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-06-05 11:11 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-06-05 16:55 ` Rob Landley
2002-06-04 16:10 ` Pavel Machek
2002-06-04 19:59 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-04 21:53 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-04 23:06 ` Alan Cox
2002-06-05 4:00 ` Daniel Phillips
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-06-05 9:24 Martin.Knoblauch
2002-06-05 19:01 Paul Zimmerman
2002-06-05 19:11 ` Karim Yaghmour
2002-06-05 20:17 ` Daniel Phillips
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3CFB40FB.E997F3E6@opersys.com \
--to=karim@opersys.com \
--cc=andersen@codepoet.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rpm@idealx.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox