Re:An ARM Server That Is Banned in the US
by musicale on Tuesday August 09, 2022 @02:02AM
(#32394671)
"But this was not exactly bad, because other things had happened like that at Stanford before."
Presumably Stanford eventually figured out that it was a tech incubator.
> The way royalties work, a third goes to the school, a third goes to the department and a third goes to the inventor. I gave my third back to my department because essentially all of this stuff is born out of a great research environment.
Presumably most of the royalties came from Cisco. Cisco's founders would certainly have known that Stanford owned the hardware design and software, as well as any copyrights or patents, and that licensing would be required.
It sounds like Yeager's biggest complaint was that Cisco didn't give him (and Bechtolsheim) credit for their work.
Presumably Stanford eventually figured out that it was a tech incubator.
> The way royalties work, a third goes to the school, a third goes to the department and a third goes to the inventor. I gave my third back to my department because essentially all of this stuff is born out of a great research environment.
Presumably most of the royalties came from Cisco. Cisco's founders would certainly have known that Stanford owned the hardware design and software, as well as any copyrights or patents, and that licensing would be required.
It sounds like Yeager's biggest complaint was that Cisco didn't give him (and Bechtolsheim) credit for their work.