Reverse engineering chips

[SkiDragon]

I know many people complain that the Messiah NEX console does not have full compatability because it uses a Nintendo on a chip (NOAC). I have heard that this is necessary because of proprietary chips used in the real NES. Well, I was curious how much it would cost to get these chips reverse engineered and reproduced, perhaps in a smaller size, to enable full compatibility remakes. This could also allow a modified S-video/RGB compatable chip to be made.

[Skyway_Recreation]

it was illegal till the patents ran out on the NES/famicom hardware BUT i think it's simply a cost issue. when you can buy a NOAC for like less than let say 25cents. y build a new chip that would cost like 5 dollars to make a piece. just to get better sound and compatibility with 5 more games? from a buisness stand point, it's all about cost. even if there were high demand, unless thousands and thousands of people were forking over thier own money for development, these companys that make these systems would still use NOAC's
+ all of the companies who make these don't give a fuck bout the quality of their products, that's why they feel like garbage and are easily damaged.

[SkiDragon]

Makes sense. And thats why I'll never buy one.

[idrougge]

I know many people complain that the Messiah NEX console does not have full compatability because it uses a Nintendo on a chip (NOAC). I have heard that this is necessary because of proprietary chips used in the real NES. Well, I was curious how much it would cost to get these chips reverse engineered and reproduced, perhaps in a smaller size, to enable full compatibility remakes. This could also allow a modified S-video/RGB compatable chip to be made.

The NOACs are reverse-engineered or even directly cloned. Cost cutting measures and shoddy workmanship is what makes a NOAC bad, apart from the fact that they are reverse-engineered and thus can't work exactly the same way as the original chips.
Also, even if Nintendo was persuaded to share their secrets, the 2A03 was drawn with early 80s fabrication technology in mind. Finding a fabrication line for that kind of chip nowadays is probably next to impossible.

[chrisbid]

its always possible, look at the commodore 64 clone used in the commodore direct to tv unit. it was developed by a hardware engineer who loved the original hardware and dedicated herself to making a great design. and it was cheap enough for a toy company to pick up to manufacture.

i doubt youll find a hardware guru be in love with an old console though

[idrougge]

its always possible, look at the commodore 64 clone used in the commodore direct to tv unit. it was developed by a hardware engineer who loved the original hardware and dedicated herself to making a great design. and it was cheap enough for a toy company to pick up to manufacture.

I know, but do you know if it is 100% compatible? I don't think so. Is it 100% true to the original. Definitely not. Cloning the C64 is even more difficult, though, due to the various programming tricks used by the programmers. And still, restarting fabrication would be even more difficult than the NES, due to the even arcaner fab processes involved in the three main chips of the C64.
In short, the only way to have a 100% true NES clone is to get a big truck, a lot of weapons, tavel back in time to one of Ricoh's factories and rob them, then go forward in time again.

[LocalH]

The v1 C64DTV is not 100% compatible, I think it has something like 67 cycles per scanline or something. It's close enough for most games, however, but some demos are likely to break or have display errors due to the differing cycle count. I can't speak for the v2 NTSC/PAL DTV.

[Ed Oscuro]

You can't simply open up a NES chip and copy it. For one, many patents on the NES are still in effect, and there's the issue of copyrights as well.

So basically, that's illegal.

The MAME dev team has a few folks with copies of some ridiculously expensive and complicated modeling software to assist in figuring out certain older chips, but even with something as simple as a solid state 70s cocktail machine it can be very tough to do, if not impossible.

[idrougge]

You can't simply open up a NES chip and copy it. For one, many patents on the NES are still in effect, and there's the issue of copyrights as well.

So basically, that's illegal.

Then again, the NES-on-a-chips are essentially illegal. To the best of my knowledge, they are stenciled on genuine chips, or at least based on knowledge gained by opening up and looking at one such chip. OTOH, such things probably weren't illegal on Taiwan back in the day, and today no-one cares.

[Red Hedgehog]

You can't simply open up a NES chip and copy it. For one, many patents on the NES are still in effect, and there's the issue of copyrights as well.

This brings up two questions:

What patents on the NES are still in effect? I presume they would be for later model NESes (lockout chips, top-loader, and so forth) as the patent term limit is 20 years (or 17 years from date of issue).

What in the NES is copyrighted? I wasn't aware that copyright applied to microchip or circuit designs. Am I wrong?

[chrisbid]

You can't simply open up a NES chip and copy it. For one, many patents on the NES are still in effect, and there's the issue of copyrights as well.

So basically, that's illegal.

Then again, the NES-on-a-chips are essentially illegal. To the best of my knowledge, they are stenciled on genuine chips, or at least based on knowledge gained by opening up and looking at one such chip. OTOH, such things probably weren't illegal on Taiwan back in the day, and today no-one cares.


if NOACs are illegal, then why does virtually every TV Games unit run with one?

[noname11]

Computer programs are copyrightable expression... outright copying of the object code is copyright infringement, and so is copying of the source code.... however, reverse engineering, that is having someone not working on the design of the chip go through the code and pick out the unprotected "ideas" behind the code and then creating specifications for another group of programers to create a program is completely legal... do the NES chips everyone is referring to have copyrightable content embedded on them ?

[Ed Oscuro]

You can't simply open up a NES chip and copy it. For one, many patents on the NES are still in effect, and there's the issue of copyrights as well.

This brings up two questions:

What patents on the NES are still in effect? I presume they would be for later model NESes (lockout chips, top-loader, and so forth) as the patent term limit is 20 years (or 17 years from date of issue).

What in the NES is copyrighted? I wasn't aware that copyright applied to microchip or circuit designs. Am I wrong?
I'd have to look up that article I linked sometime in the later months last year...an attorney looked through some of the patents.

I'm quite sure it was on gamasutra.com, though (needs a free registration).

[idrougge]

if NOACs are illegal, then why does virtually every TV Games unit run with one?

I wager that is because no-one cares, or because it is very fuzzy. How would Nintendo prove it, would it be in their interest to prove it, and would it be worth going to court against small fish?

[SkiDragon]

I figured the patents were obsolete by now. Thats how Messiah gets away with the NEX.

I found this site
http://www.chipworks.com/index.asp

It looks like they do reverse engineering, but I dont know anything else about it.

[idrougge]

I don't think reverse engineering is outlawed in any country yet. Pure copying is another thing, such as when the Soviet Union cloned Z80 processors using electron microscopes.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't think reverse engineering is outlawed in any country yet. Pure copying is another thing, such as when the Soviet Union cloned Z80 processors using electron microscopes.
No, no right to reverse engineer stuff exists in patent law. It's illegal in most cases - but not all.

A good paper on the issue (in the software realm, but it dicusses many hardware issues) may be found here:

http://www.jenkins-ip.com/serv/serv_6.htm

[Red Hedgehog]

Right. Patent law protects ideas (specific designs). Therefore reverse engineering to obtain specifications and then having a separate set of people design something to those specifications in a "clean room" environment would still infringe upon a patent if they ended up using the same idea.

Reverse engineering software (at least in the US) is held to be acceptable under the "fair use" clause of copyright law so long as it is used to gather specifications and make compatible software. This is why unlicensed developers can make games for consoles. Sega vs. Accolade was the precedent-setting case in this issue (following up on Nintendo vs. Atari). You can read more about that here:
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/projects-99-00/intellectual-property-law/reverse_engineering.htm

[noname11]

Yup, I know about Sega v Accolade... Has anyone ever thought it a bit weird that copyright law doesnt afford what is/was predominantly a japanese industry the same protections as other industries

For Example
Under the Copyright law you cant rent computer programs as the "first sale doctrine" is limited when it comes to computer programs BUT the Copyright Act Specifically allows for rentals of "limited purpose computers" [read, consoles]

Also, tweaking the display of a video game w/ a game genie, which is arguably an infringement of the audiovisial work of a videogame, has been specifically found not to be an infringement under Nintendo v Galoob.

I have a theory about this.... basically US lawmakers/judges like what pays them/their gov when it comes to copyrights in terms of taxes - so that what gets jealously protected... and videogames werent [pre 2000] too big on their radar



Should be interesting once they decide the xbox 360 is no longer a limited purpose computer.... no more rentals? a videogame RIAA?

[idrougge]

I don't think reverse engineering is outlawed in any country yet. Pure copying is another thing, such as when the Soviet Union cloned Z80 processors using electron microscopes.
No, no right to reverse engineer stuff exists in patent law. It's illegal in most cases - but not all.

A good paper on the issue (in the software realm, but it dicusses many hardware issues) may be found here:

http://www.jenkins-ip.com/serv/serv_6.htm

The kind of "reverse engineering" referred to by that document is not the kind I refer to. They talk of opening up a chip and scanning it, which doesn't strike me as reverse engineering as much as direct copying. This is what was used in the USSR when cloning microprocessors and in Taiwan when cloning the NES, but it's not reverse engineering in my book.
Honest reverse engineering should treat the reference design as a "black box", whose behaviour is to be emulated, regardless of its inner workings. If I wanted someone to reverse engineer a NES, I'd give them programming information and a console to study. They'd input things into the console and see what comes out, then come up with something which reacts in the same way to the same stimuli.