Still, Im confused as to how far along this technology is and how much the papermaster could really know and be able to do at Apple. Is IBM really worried they're going to be in a race with Apple to the storage techonology of 2019?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
IBM's Lawsuit Against Papermaster Over 'Racetrack' Memory? [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If IBM want to protect their secrets, wouldn't they be better-off using patent law or copyright law or something like that?
Non-compete clauses seem so.... er... Anti-competetive.
C.
Non-compete clauses seem so.... er... Anti-competetive.
C.
So should I buy an iMac now or wait?
Anyways this technology does sound quite interesting though the speeds and capacity do not sound remarkable for storage in ten years. I would expect that flash memory would have the market by then and be an extremely strong competitor of this storage from IBM.
As for the number of songs I would think people would be using lossless encoding or expecting Super Audio CD audio quality and stored uncompressed. For videos I think people would store less material in preference for HD quality for connecting to any TV.
If I were the boss: 10 years? I want it on my desk by next month.
But seriously, this technology sounds like a large R&D job at the chip level.
Historically, Apples R&D would take a bunch of existing chips and creates an iPod out of them.
That is, until Apple bought P.A. Semi... does IBM really believe that apple is trying to develop a revolutionary state-of-the-art technology in-house??
But seriously, this technology sounds like a large R&D job at the chip level.
Historically, Apples R&D would take a bunch of existing chips and creates an iPod out of them.
That is, until Apple bought P.A. Semi... does IBM really believe that apple is trying to develop a revolutionary state-of-the-art technology in-house??
The non-compete was for one year. If this technology is not due out for another ten years, is it really all that relative? Now that the cat's out of the bag, perhaps Apple could prove that it (as well as others) have been working on similar technologies.
Well at least this shows that IBM did have some kind of plausible claim going. Apple would of course be interested in using this kind of technology in their products. I still have a hard time believing that Apple is actively pursuing manufacture of its own memory chips. But who knows?
It sounds like IBM is treating this as a trade secret for now, so they want some kind of protection from this technology being leaked to the wider world. Can't blame them, but I do have a hard time believing that Apple would try to steal this IP anyway.
It is a trade secret for now. It can't be patented, or it would no longer be a secret. IBM is concerned about "industrial espionage", not someone using their technology without paying them money.
Bah, ROCKMASTER already works for Microsoft and will create a perpetual circular lawsuit.
Of course since the advent of computers and now viable e-book readers, the obsolescence of paper has been foreseen for sometime, so having the PAPERMASTER on your team may not be the benefit it once was.
memory and chips go hand in hand. there is memory on a chip itself. now also, storage has to interface with the CPU chip.
now with changes, memory chips, sticks and more are very important to storage today. and if tech shifts, allowing massive storage with little electrical use. imagine the possiblities.
this is a big deal for down the road. 10 years from now, just as holographic storage is a big deal. huge storage, little space, and lower costs.
IBM needs to let this guy earn a living, and this scientist needs to sign paperwork saying this tech will not go to apple. unless properly licensed.
lawsuits like this rarely stand up in california courts or so I have been told. Apple and papermaster just have to show that they are not direct competitors to IBM.
anti-competitive? hah, looks like IBM needs to do this to protect huge R&D investment.
that said, there should be a way around this to allow apple to hire the guy ... and to have IBM protected.
an excerpt from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
Enforceability in the State of California
Unlike the situation in other states, non-compete agreements are illegal in California and against public policy except in statutorily provided circumstances. (California Business and Professions Code Section 16600). See, e.g., Raymond Edwards II v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, Cal. Sup. Ct. (August 7, 2008). They were outlawed in 1872.[5]
[edit]Out of state agreements are not enforceable
The preeminent court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 881 (1998). In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a "strong public policy of the State of California" and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California.
Whether California courts are required by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided.
[edit]Exceptions - valid non-compete agreements in California
There are limited situations where a reasonable non-compete agreement may be valid in California.
If an owner is selling the goodwill in their business. (Business & Professions Code Section 16601).
When there is a dissolution or disassociation of a partnership. (Business & Professions Code Section 16602).
Where there is a dissolution of a limited liability company. (Business & Professions Code Section 16602.5).
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
Enforceability in the State of California
Unlike the situation in other states, non-compete agreements are illegal in California and against public policy except in statutorily provided circumstances. (California Business and Professions Code Section 16600). See, e.g., Raymond Edwards II v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, Cal. Sup. Ct. (August 7, 2008). They were outlawed in 1872.[5]
[edit]Out of state agreements are not enforceable
The preeminent court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 881 (1998). In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a "strong public policy of the State of California" and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California.
Whether California courts are required by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided.
[edit]Exceptions - valid non-compete agreements in California
There are limited situations where a reasonable non-compete agreement may be valid in California.
If an owner is selling the goodwill in their business. (Business & Professions Code Section 16601).
When there is a dissolution or disassociation of a partnership. (Business & Professions Code Section 16602).
Where there is a dissolution of a limited liability company. (Business & Professions Code Section 16602.5).
[edit]
So, IBM is suing because of something Papermaster might share. Sounds kind of like Minority Report, doesn't it?
That's what people always say "I don't need that". Or "who needs a billion terrabyte iPod". No that is not the way to lok at the problem. You should ask "what could I do with billion terrabytes?" Well, for one you would NOT need to download very much because the iPod would come pre-loaded with every song, track, video and move ever produced in the last 100 years, you'd only have to download new stuff.
Wait 100 years, by then the price of billion terrabytes will be close to zero.
Although Apple & IBM do not directly compete in most markets Apple is in, IBM should have no problem showing that Apple would find any knowledge of this product highly desirable given the number of product lines it could impact dramatically in a positive way.
All iPods, iPhones, MB, MBP, iMac, MacMini, AppleTV lines could potentially benefit, obviously we aren't privy to knowing exactly what uses this memory has, but it would appear anything that uses a small form factor or relies heavily on battery power can benefit.
I would be inclined to think that the Papermaster may not be the genius behind the technology, but I would be not be willing to say he has no knowledge.
Maybe IBM is just sulking over Apple dumping IBM for Intel, maybe IBM has a legitimate concern, either way, their seems to be a lot of fuss over the guy and IBM seems to be willing to fight a bit more than normal over him.
But at what resolution will those movies, and what bitrates/encoding will be on the songs?
By the time we reach storage capacities that we deem ludicrous today, TV and display resolutions will have increased and audio systems will have improves as will digital encoding resulting in larger files with better content for the newer methods of playback.
Sure it could come pre-loaded with all movies ever, but who would want only merely Hi-def content on their 120,000p LCoS Ultra-super-duper-mega-definition display?
That's exactly what I was going to say. CDs & several other forms of digital music are encoded at 16-bits/sample, 44,000 samples/second. There are many audio formats & sound cards out there at 24-bits (I think I may even have seen 32-bit somewhere)/sample, 192,000 samples/sec. So audio in this format will be over 6.5 times as large as other (give or take, depending on audio format). Plus, look at HD vs. SD video.
should have known there was more to this story. that technology does sound nice, but 10 years away?
The beauty of a wikibite is it's as much storage as you want it to be!
Until someone comes and edits it, and changes the size. So you better keep backing up. Because if they make it a smaller size you'll loose your data OH NO!
"Hey Steve, my Job's at risk..."
anyway, after that bombshell... why would IBM hold the technology back... I don't want to buy an iBM mp3 player if they ever made one... well they're probably selling this technology to other companies. Hmm. So if paper clip (master) can't work for Apple for a year, that technolgy can still be acquired by Apple next year anyway.
...and even if it is cheaper for Apple to produce, it isn't difficult to imagine that Apple won't drop the iPod prices
anyway, after that bombshell... why would IBM hold the technology back... I don't want to buy an iBM mp3 player if they ever made one... well they're probably selling this technology to other companies. Hmm. So if paper clip (master) can't work for Apple for a year, that technolgy can still be acquired by Apple next year anyway.
...and even if it is cheaper for Apple to produce, it isn't difficult to imagine that Apple won't drop the iPod prices
We have been using the free docs from justia instead of the usual pay service Pacer.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-nysdce/case_no-7:2008cv09078/case_id-334178/
From what wiki tells me, I now know the names of the next iPods! MWahah!
Look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta-
Looks like the next ipod will be the iPod pico (or the PicoPod)
(CuRrEnT iPoD) iPod Nano
2.Femtopod (iPod Femto)
3.AttoPod (iPod Atto)
4.zeptopod
5.yoctopod
Just a bit of theory. LOL
-Sam
Look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yotta-
Looks like the next ipod will be the iPod pico (or the PicoPod)
(CuRrEnT iPoD) iPod Nano
2.Femtopod (iPod Femto)
3.AttoPod (iPod Atto)
4.zeptopod
5.yoctopod
Just a bit of theory. LOL
-Sam
Papermaster sounds like a evil villain more than a super hero though. No evil people should work for Apple. That Cook man sounds like he could be more machine than man. Not sure if he is evil yet.
"Hey Steve, my Job's at risk..."
anyway, after that bombshell... why would IBM hold the technology back... I don't want to buy an iBM mp3 player if they ever made one... well they're probably selling this technology to other companies. Hmm. So if paper clip (master) can't work for Apple for a year, that technolgy can still be acquired by Apple next year anyway.
...and even if it is cheaper for Apple to produce, it isn't difficult to imagine that Apple won't drop the iPod prices
Unlikely that IBM would have any interest in selling the complete product, but lets just say this technology makes the whole flash memory market obsolete for media players, there is a lot of money to be made in either licensing the tech or selling the physical memory especially to one particular company... Apple. However, if Apple were to develop this technology themselves they could then license it to everyone else in addition to not paying anyone for memory for the iPod/iPhone line.
Apple can invest a few million into this guy and save massive amounts of money long term buy not buying memory from other suppliers.
My head just exploded thinking about how snappy Safari will be in 10 years.
20 years ago hard drives well under 100 megabytes, and 30 years ago they were in kilobytes. It only gets better as time goes on. And yes, I think we'll be using multiple petabytes of ultrafast-storage in our computers in 10 years.
20 years ago hard drives well under 100 megabytes, and 30 years ago they were in kilobytes. It only gets better as time goes on. And yes, I think we'll be using multiple petabytes of ultrafast-storage in our computers in 10 years.