Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
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]

patch said:
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??
Click to expand...

This sort of low level state-of-the-art technology still seems out of the reach of Apple to develop direct.

The PA semi thing seems to be Apple taking the next step. Instead of taking a bunch of chips and making a system, they can now take a bunch of cores and make a "system on a chip" out of them.

Still, it sure would be a cool way to blow that cash pile, not the wisest, this sort of low level stuff is high risk, but one of the coolest.
 
tkidBOSTON said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think they are more worried that things he has worked on but as yet have made it in to Patents applications will hit the public domain, or will be diluted by other patents he may generate at Apple. That's why there is only a year exclusion gives them time for any projects he work on to get far enough ahead to be patentable.

Once the patent is applied for anything he knows is redundant anyway.
 
dernhelm said:
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.
Click to expand...

How can it be a trade secret when they announced some of the details April this year? Surely at least some of the confidentiality has been lost there [Whilst I'm a law student, I'm in Australia, so I don't have much idea what crazy laws you guys come up with 😀]


ChrisA said:
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.
Click to expand...

That wasn't my point. My point was instead of focussing on how many crappy-quality 128KBPS MP3s we could cram in this new technology - how about fantasising about how good a quality songs we could have. Forget CD-quality, how about ear-quality 🙂
 
arn said:
from http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3728060.ece



I'm not sure how big a concern this is for IBM. Based on his job desc, it doesn't seem like he would have been involved in this, but I don't have the court documents.

arn
Click to expand...

That and the fact that it is a 'in 10 years' theoretical technology. Is all on paper, so even if he did have the information, he would still have to have the knowledge to implement it - hence the reason why it won't be available for another 10 years.
 
Mark Papermaster is my cousin-in-law

Mark Papermaster is my cousin-in-law

Although I haven't seen him in probably ten years. (He lives in TX, I live in MN)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back