Place County Court
2. P has instructed me that the computer on a chip that is now installed in his PC is of IBM manufacture being referenced as an IBM Blue Lightning DX2 (Refs IBM26 486-V666GA). The presumption is that this is the computer on a chip installed by D when they upgraded P's 386 computer to a 486.
3. I would explain that while Intel have taken the lead in designing and developing the computer on a chip used in a PC they are not legally in a position to prevent others producing what are known as "clones" of the Intel computer on a chip. A clone is a computer on a chip that will produce similar results to an Intel computer on a chip but does not infringe Intel's rights in their "mask work", which is the form of copyright that is used to protect computer on a chip designs. I say similar results to those produced by the Intel computer on a chip as the results may not be identical. Any differences have to be compensated for with the type of change referred to in paragraph 3.2 of my Expert Witness's Summary Report dated x.....x.
4. Some manufacturers of clones of Intel computer on a chip have rights to use Intel mask work designs following agreements reached with Intel in the past and as a result of litigation in the United States. Investigation of these rights of clone manufacturers is beyond the scope of this report.
5.1 The fact that the 486 computer on a chip installed by D was or was not of one or other particular manufacturer is, in my opinion, of no account if having completed the upgrade from a 386 to a 486 the computer works correctly at the higher performance expected.
5.2 I repeat the expression of opinion in paragraph 3.2 of my Expert
Witness's Summary Report, "The upgrade of a PC from a 386 to a 486 cannot be
achieved by the mere physical exchange of components." That statement will be
particularly so if the computer on a chip is manufactured as a clone.